Rand Paul: America Partly To Blame For Pearl Harbor, World War II

At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin this weekend highlighted a video of Rand Paul speaking in 2012 about sanctions on Iran. In it, Paul disparages the notion of use of force, and for some reason claims the United States was partly to blame for World War II!

“There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.”

Rubin spoke with David David Adesnik of the American Enterprise Institute about Paul’s remarks:

After viewing the video, he tells Right Turn, “Blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor is a long-standing isolationist habit that reflects tremendous historical illiteracy. Sen. Paul is very poorly informed if he thinks U.S. sanctions ‘probably caused Japan to react angrily.’” He explains, “The U.S. cut off oil supplies to Japan in August 1941, long after Japan had launched its atrocity-laden war against China in 1937. The evidence is conclusive that Japan was determined to dominate all of East Asia. Believing that the U.S. would not stand by passively if it overran Thailand, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies, Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.”

With regard to the Senator’s comments about Germany, Adesnik declared them “so eccentric that it’s hard to be sure what he’s even talking about.” He goes on to point out the obvious, which is that we should be proud of our actions in Europe before and during the war, regardless of whether or not they antagonized the Nazis.

Senator Paul at the time of the video and in remarks since, referred to a nuclear Iran as “not a good idea”, which is true, in much the same way that sticking one’s hand in a wood chipper is a “not a good idea”.

Equally as troubling is his explanation of the rationale for sanctions being “doing something is better than doing nothing.” A colleague objects to Paul’s “straw man” and remarks “is this how we think about national security now?” Good question. Another good question is whether or not the first consideration in pursuing American interests and security is whether or not an enemy or “rogue” nation may become annoyed with us.

Rubin says that “these comments, his bizarre take on historical events and his current opposition to sanctions (in accord with President Obama) raise troubling issues regarding his true beliefs and the degree to which his father’s radical libertarian ideas have rubbed off on him.”

Indeed the issues are raised. And going into 2016, Obamaesque waffling on treading lightly or Ron Paul-like isolationism are not attributes anyone in this party should be looking for in a candidate. Answers to those issues, therefore, should be top priority for Senator Paul.

*Updated with partial transcription of relevant portion for those without audio. 10:43 AM.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

notebene

More proof that either of the Pauls would be a foreign policy nightmare, which we cannot afford. Rand is so ignorant it is scary that he is even in a position of power in the Senate! This is what happen when folks refuse to pay attention and learn world history…we will be doomed to repeat it.

$98442859

Which we are doing even now. People; every single one of us are stupid sheep and every generation is one step away from chaos.

Before you jump off the Paul band wagon and jump here and there depending on the “latest” sound bite… PLEASE consider the sources of the elite propaganda machine. JENNIFER RUBIN is NOT a credible source for any information. She is a GOP shill. She is not a true conservative but plays the roll nicely. We are in a war with the elites and I would encourage you ALL to research the source from this point forward.

wales777

We all claim to be avid followers of our founders. Well, they spoke continually against jumping head first into foreign conflicts. Yes, there is a balance but Paul is trying get us back to a balance of sticking our nose in every damn conflict and trying to control everything. Paul also understands the the IMF is truly been manipulating foreign conflicts from its inception during WW1.

Darrell Griffin

Seeing people wake up is refreshing.

Seeing these blogs about a year ago and all the Paul fanboys/ babes was really starting to concern me.

EchoMike

1.) I’d be wary of anything coming from the Wash Post’s “conservative” Jennifer Ruben. You know she’s running blocker for whatever Rep establishment candidate gets shoved in our face.
2.) That being said the US should always conduct it’s foreign policy ion the best interest of the country. That doesn’t mean you drop troops on the ground whenever you feel like it, and no one is even mentioning that as an option. But we should be doing everything in our power to gain favor, and positive relationships built on the promise of spreading and defending freedom.
3.) If we do drop troops then we have to change the way we fight wars. We have to get back to fighting to win! I saw a friend post some leftist pic talking about the trillions of dollars spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. My rebut to them is we could fought those wars for half the money had we actually fought them to win quickly and decisively.

B-Funk

Good point. It could be that he was pointing out that our internal success as a country seemed threatening to Japan, and that- seeing us as weak during the Depression- an attack would end our rise in power… Just spit-balling, but I can see how he could be turned into a wacko by a devious journalist.

EchoMike

There’s a delicate balance between being an isolationist, and a Neo-Con. We don’t need to be the “World Police”, but we should be doing everything to support those countries eager for liberty, and make it harder for the opponents of freedom to obtain control.

Watchman74

We’ve pretty much been the world police since WW2. But if not us then who? I’m sure Russia would fill the vacuum.

B-Funk

Well put.

Weswieann

Rand Paul is all over the place with foreign policy. He is simply pandering to get votes, which makes him unprincipled. In reality, he is dangerously weak. His OVERREACTION to Senator Cruz’ VERY HONEST comments about his (Rand’s) foreign policy should have been a red flag to us all. Wake up America!

Darrell Griffin

Gimmick lawsuits and safe talking points.

Fact is that the “mind our own business” option, by incompetence or choice, is what Obama has mostly done. What the “Paul Doctrine” is.How’s that working out for us ?

Weswieann

Bam! Spot on Darrell – Rand’s policies in a couple of sentences.

BearNJ

It was easy to dismiss his Dad because he looked and talked like a crazy uncle. Rand had been smoother but his pandering to the young and independents accepting the left’s talking points have proven him to be unreliable. I’m glad he’s in the Senate but he’s not Presidential.

wsmith20

Like father, like son.

Gene White

More or less.

B-Funk

Oh no. Is he turning in to crazy Uncle Ron? /facepalm

Darrell Griffin

No, he’s starting to let his true colors show.

As I said before, someone can only hide behind focus group tested talking points and “safe messaging” for so long.

cattastrophe

Fear not Rand the Potheads don’t care about no damn history or America’s place in the world they’ll still support you.

marketcomp

No truer words spoken.

Obomination

His endorsement of McConnell was all I needed to see. And it’s looking like that is not going to work out quite like Paul wanted it to. Surprise, surprise.

Chester Simms

And I say again: we’ve found our Manchurian Candidate

Guest

Hah! Caleb writes and article defending libertarianism against Chris Mathews. That article seems to have disappeared and now we have this piece of oppo dirt. Looks like penance for daring to not carry the narrative of the Cro-Magnon conservatives on this blog.

Caleb Howe

Um. Disappeared?

Darrell Griffin

The article is still up there, and I wouldn’t characterize it as an affirmation of the liberaltarian view.

Yos Ges

Fact is Germany started it’s Blitz Krig 9/1/39 but the US got officially involved only at the end of 1941 after Japan hit Pearl Harbor in response to sanctions placed on them by FDR over a territory issue.

tinlizzieowner

Yes and that ‘territory’ just happened to be Asia, half the Pacific ocean, the Aleutian Islands and what soon would have been Australia.
😉 😉

Judges718

Great point.

And, history seems to be repeating itself, only this time with China in place of Imperial Japan.

tinlizzieowner

Wait till Putin finishes reconstructing the Soviet Union like Stalin did once we gave him the means, during and after WW2. :-{

“Senator Paul at the time of the video and in remarks since, referred to a nuclear Iran as “not a good idea”, which is true, in much the same way that sticking one’s hand in a wood chipper is a “not a good idea”.”

Assuming your post(and others) is to me (may or may not be) You know, this is what the left do. Name calling. I haven’t filled out a ballot for anyone yet, I haven’t made any decisions yet. What I am doing is pointing out some things that we should consider. Isn’t that what libertarians/conservatives claim to do? I do not consider myself a Paul, a Cruz bot or any bot. I really like Paul and I really like Cruz for different reasons. Can we have the debate without the “bot” nonsense? didn’t Rand just have his great CPAC speech posted here a few weeks ago and everyone was raving? Really guys and gals, is this how we’re going to play this game?

Darrell Griffin

If it isn’t personally applicable, don’t take it that way.

Like it or not, there are Paulbots. They are the OWS of the right. Their ramblings and rants about “liberty” can more often than not be boiled down to doing a legal bong hit.

They have earned the moniker, the contempt, and the disdain that goes with the name. Much like liberals don’t like to be called liberals.

Doesn’t surprise me, and yet at the same time it also wouldn’t surprise me if Karl Rove didn’t plant the story and will once again try to convince we the great unwashed to come back under the big tent with The Good Jester Jeb. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. No.

Darrell Griffin

Conservatives need to get behind the most viable, GENUINE conservative candidate early.

the question is would they have attacked us w/o the sanctions, and I think they would have.
IMO the sanctions may have hastened it but it was going to happen anyways.

Crassus

War would have broken out sooner or later anyway, most likely in the Phillipines which Japan considered a part of its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity sphere of influence. Since Germany was pledged by treaty to declare war on the United States should we enter into war against Japan we would have gotten involved in Europe as well.

Gene White

dmacleo, if you had not brought that into the conversation, I was going to. And the answer, is yes.

Darrell Griffin

Without sanctions they would have hit us sooner, with a better equipped and more superior force than they did.

$2180674

The nut didn’t fall very far from the tree.

$22716193

Yes, nut is exactly the right description here.

Darrell Griffin

Different nut, SAME tree.

Gene White

While that may be true, we should be careful not to define Libertarianism by using the Paul family as examples. That is a mistake that the media and lots of others have made, regarding Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement.

A lot of what we believe in, as Conservatives, involve Libertarian principles.

Darrell Griffin

The divide IS foreign policy.

Conservatives and libertarians, for the most part, believe in almost identical things on the domestic and economic front. A few variants when social policy is introduced….weed for example.

On foreign policy (including immigration), libertarians for the most part are just like liberals.

Gene White

I agree, but the majority not to the extent of Rand Paul and his father.

Swamp Fox

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Period — end o’ story.

For me, this dude has never been complete.

Myptofvu

We were starving Japan of oil using different methods including purchasing the oil at high prices from the market. Claiming that we didn’t “officially” cut off oil supplies to Japan until August is irrelevant.

Crassus

The people of Nanking wished that the U.S. had “starved” Japan of oil a few years earlier.

lilium479

Did FDR know the attack was coming and said nothing?

As far as Germany, FDR was a Communist. Did we fight WWII to defeat NAZIs or promote Communism?

I don’t think so. He and they knew it was coming, but they thought it would be the Philippines. Pearl Harbor really shocked them.

tinlizzieowner

I have a document in the museum from the office of the Chief of Naval Operations, dated Feb. 7th 1941 outlining the possibility of an attack on Pearl Harbor.
We have one of the only 2 remaining copies of the Honolulu Advertiser news paper with the headline across the top,
“JAPANESE MAY STRIKE OVER WEEKEND”.
The date on this paper is (Sunday) Nov. 30th 1941.
Roosevelt and military intelligence KNEW this attack was coming, There was no way he would be allowed to take any military action against the Japanese. Look up ‘The America First Committee’ (which, by the way quietly dissolved into the dust bun of history on Dec. 11th, 1941). 😉

Honolulu wasn’t a very big town in 1941. When that paper hit the streets, the Army was running all over town tearing the front pages off of them. The guy who donated this copy was in the hospital when the Army came in and started tearing the front pages off patient’s papers. He tore the front page off his own and hid it in his underwear. He found it again years later when his mother died and he found it in her belongings and donated it to us.
As a representative of a 501-C3 museum, I made 2 e-mail inquiries to the Honolulu Advertiser about this paper, I never got a reply.

‘History’ says the Carriers were ‘out on maneuvers’ when Pearl Harbor was attacked. True (sort of), the carriers were delivering extra planes to Wake and Midway islands before the (expected) Japanese attack. The Enterprise would have been in Pearl on Dec. 7th but was caught in a storm. It arrived on Dec. 8th.

Over 70% of the American population was against getting involved in ‘Europe and Asia’s wars’ before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
My parents were members of the ‘America First Committee’ until Dec. 8th 1941. 😉 😉
Isolationism is only good for one thing, re-arming.
😉 😉

I’m going to have to visit your museum at some point, if I have not already.

tinlizzieowner

Please do. I will show you some things that don’t quite fit in the history books, from all of our wars.

Darrell Griffin

FDR realized that after Germany and Japan conquered and consolidated Europe and Asia, that we were next.

Geopolitical reality.

Why did Rome and other empires conquer most of the known world ? Because they could.

Gtrjag

The problem with this clip is that Rand Paul does not seem to fully understand the consequences of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, nor does he appreciate the important role that America has in the world. He was actually correct about WWII. If it wasn’t for the allies extreme peace terms after WWI, the political climate necessary for Hitler to come to power would probably not have existed. As for Japan, It was our opposition to their actions in East Asia which prompted them to attack Pear Harbor. This does not make WWII our fault, not I did not hear Paul say that WWII was our fault.

Darrell Griffin

Which is why anyone serious about national security should dismiss him as a viable candidate.

Gtrjag

He is definitely not my first choice. I would much rather have Ted Cruz or Rick Perry. But, if my choice in 2016 comes down between Rand Paul and Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, or some other progressive Republican, I will vote for Paul.

Open mouth and prove everyone who has been saying “look closer at his views” right.

For example: Someone may agree with him on the NSA, but look at where his policy would take us.

Conservative_Hippie

yep!

Amjean

I listened to the video and this is what I heard:
“……encouraged anger….”

Caleb Howe

You must have missed “sanctions have made it worse” and “caused Japan to react angrily.”

Darrell Griffin

The unsaid part is this:

Does this mean we shouldn’t have sanctions on Iran ? Like Ron Paul has said ? He voted no for them.

Does this mean we shouldn’t have sanctions on Russia or economic aid to Ukraine ? He voted no for those as well.

Link above from Daily Paulbot.

Any questions ? Me either.

Amjean

That is my point exactly – Rand Paul did not say
“US was partly to blame for WWII”. I am tired of this
garbage. Some reporters or so called reporters are no
better than the lefties that disparaged Sarah Palin.
It is sick.

Caleb Howe

How is that your point? Your point was that you don’t transcribe quotes correctly?

Amjean

You know exactly what the point is. I am sure
that you are a smart person and have figured this
out for yourself. We don’t really need to post
back and forth any more.

Caleb Howe

I didn’t make Rand Paul say what he said. It was his choice. But you can’ UNsay it for him.

Crassus

Rand Paul is the biggest fraud in American politics today. He’s an anti-Semitic kook just like his daddy yet he covers it in a mask of supposed constitutional conservatism. At least these Marxist scumbags like Obamao, Weed, and Pukelosi aren’t making any attempts (anymore) to hide who and what they are. I’ll never “Stand with Rand” even if he runs for the office of National Dogcatcher.

Darrell Griffin

For about the thousandth time…….

Rand Paul is Ron Paul with smarter “messaging”.

They might have slight differences, but their overall world view is the same. Their overall foreign policy is the same. This is why he could never win a general election for President..

Conservator1

I see Paulbots defending isolationism via a straw man tactics. I can do likewise and place the blame on America’s embracing isolationism while gutting the military after WW I as the reason for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

Rand Paul in an answer to one question has proven he holds the same views as his father on foreign policy and it would be as dangerous as Obama’s. He lost his position as a Tea Party conservative which he never deserved.

More important, his views are worse for America than RINOs like McCain, Graham and even McConnell who would use all of America’s might to defend ourselves in a world that’s just as dangerous as it was in the 1930’s.

Paulbots can disagree, but a foreign policy that’s akin to an ostrich putting its head in the sand while hopping the danger will passed is a naive and a danger to the world.

Darrell Griffin

Exactly. Geopolitical REALITY, not wishful thinking.

Be the windshield or be the bug.
Project power and influence, or have it projected on to you.
Influence world events, or have world events influence you.
Just because you promise not to eat the lion, does not mean the lion won’t eat you.

Paulbots NEVER get this. Like I posted in another thread. They are like liberals and socio-economics. Their policies always lead to disaster, and they refuse to learn from history.

jrt67

The problem with the video is that Paul is on the fence. Now, he seems to feel that diffusing a war is better than having a war. That is a good thing until you are under attack. We need rock solid leaderships after a decade of obama

Darrell Griffin

He’s always on the fence. He never takes a stand on foreign policy that isn’t safe. So he won’t be exposed.

Where’s he stand on Ukraine ? crickets.
Syria, unpopular idea. He got in front of it.

marketcomp

He takes a stand based on what’s popular. But Rand Paul gave a speech at Heritage and he boasted about containment.

I also saw Rand whining about Cruz “mischaracterizing” his views, when Cruz did nothing of the sort. Rand is mad he’s getting exposed this early.

timerunnersc

Senator Paul,
must surly know the difference between blockades or sanctions against a western power vs the same deterrents used against angry Radical Muslims who live in a constant state of total madness, destruction and death, and not just towards themselves but also towards every nation on earth, so even especially so against the civilized Christian nations.

Sentinel

There are moments when he’s brilliant and I like him. Then there are moments where says something stupid like this. We are all human and prone to slip up now and again… so, with respect to his supporters, I’ll simply say this: He needs to be thoroughly vetted. Rand seems to be politicking right now. If Rand wants my vote, he needs to get and stay on solid ground. Right now, there’s still some shifting sand under him and it concerns me.

Darrell Griffin

If he shifts on the sand to forward himself, that’s all I need to see.

I see no such behavior from Cruz. Cruz 2016 !!!

Sentinel

I’m with you on that.

John Bohler

Yup, the Paul faction will be alive and well in the 2016 primaries with Rand truly taking up his father’s torch. “groans”

virginiagentleman1

Insanity runs deep in the Paul family.
And Rand Paul thinks he has a chance at winning the presidency?
PLEASE, no more family dynasties in American politics! No more Roosevelt’s, Kennedy’s, Bushes, Clintons, AND Paul’s!

Darrell Griffin

Unfortunately, Rand is the new Ron.

Token candidate with a cult following that will disrupt and undermine, helping the establishment candidate win, then stay home or vote third party.
The Paulbot fleas just jumped from the old dog to the new one.

virginiagentleman1

So very true!

Darrell Griffin

We’re from the same state, so I can safely assume that you know the antics….and the high cost…they have cost us in the Old Dominion.

Cuccinelli the latest example, although he did himself no favors.

marketcomp

Rand Paul is just an amalgamation of whatever him and his team thinks is popular at the time and he hopes enough so to ride him to the presidency.

It is our duty as citizens to fully vet the candidates of our party. If they come up short they need to be eliminated in the primaries. Something the Democrat party failed to do resulting in the mess we have today. Hopefully the supporters of one candidate or the other are not so insanely invested in their candidate they turn their back on the winner of the primary.

Darrell Griffin

You’re talking about Paulbots.

They are like spoiled children, all their way or nothing but disruption and temper tantrums.

I call it the “P(all) or Nothing” attitude.

bjohnson55

And what will be your response if Rand Paul comes out on top? I am hoping we can all (as a unified party) agree to have these debates without fragmenting our one opportunity to begin turning this country in the correct (right) direction. We can all agree Rand Paul would be better than any Democrat (Socialist).

Darrell Griffin

Part of me would be highly tempted to give Paulbots a taste of their own medicine.

That said, he won’t come out on top. When his views are shown the light of day, he will go from popular choice of the young and clueless, to token-pain-in-the-ass-during-every-election-cycle over night….just like his father.

bjohnson55

I agree with you and will not support him in the primaries however if he does by some miracle pull off the nomination I wll support him 100% no question about it. I believe we need to all get in that mode early on in this process and know we will support the nominee that survives the Primary. The socialists are drooling at the prospects of us Conservatives eating our own before we even get to the polls.

Vorlath –

Both Pauls are nutjobs. It’d be worse than Obama. Maybe Paulbots should go to the Dem Party. They allow nutjobs to rise to the top. Also, they believe in the exact same thing the Paul’s do.

bjohnson55

There ya go then, elections do have consequences and you deserve the world you get with that kind of logic. Step back a little and reconsider you will be supporting full blown Socialism and kissing the Consitution goodbye.

conservatism is the answer

this is what most of us conservative and grass roots republicans are afraid of… at least we are finding this stuff out NOW and not after the primaries. it will be interesting to hear him spin out of this stuff. I think this is just the beginning of the troubling things we might hear from rand. it’s too bad really. because most conservatives on are the same page with libertarians in terms of individual rights and domestic things. it’s the foreign policy, national defense, and some of the social issues that divide us. being the son of ron paul is not a bonus for rand with much of the grassroots republicans..

Darrell Griffin

I knew it months ago. Many people , including here, were saying “Rand isn’t like Ron, he’s different”. To which I replied, NO, he’s just good at hiding it.

Darrell Griffin

Even the Daily Paulbot sees it. “Rand looking more and more like Daddy every day”

“Talk is cheap –Votes count.
Rand’s been busy the last few days.
Voted no on sactions on Russia
Voted no on Urkrain Stimulus
Voted no on Iran “Resolutions” –standing all alone not unlike you know who?
Sounds pretty Dr No-ish to me.

The Rand Paul rEVOLution begins!! “

Darrell Griffin

A reply from a PaulBot on that thread that exemplifies EVERYTHING I have been saying for months.

“shhhhhhhhh, Freedomfrank. Let the neo-cons think he represents their values.

I think overtime, a large group of republicans will come to see the light. However, it will take years (it did for some of us, even as independents). Let them like Rand, maybe fall in love with Rand, but give them time. Until then, we need to stay covert. 😉

Thanks for the reminder.”

puma_for_life

Jennifer Ruben’s job is to take down Rand Paul. But just in case that is not enough to do the job, not to worry Right Scoop, you are in good company as the GOP establishment also promises to take him down…in favor of Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, no doubt…big question, what do they mean by take down? :

“On the margins of the conference, where attendees heard from four
potential 2016 candidates who advocated for a strong American foreign
policy and support for Israel, five donors huddled with a reporter
pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the
GOP nomination.

“The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run
and steal each other’s support,” says one of the donors, “but if not,
we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”

Darrell Griffin

The truth about his positions are going to “take him down”. Nothing more, nothing less.

Did you really think a GOP candidate could be like Obama and hide his true beliefs and get elected ? Put the bong down if you did.

johndubose

There is NO DOUBT that the USA struck a hostile pose to Germany and Japan in the runup to WW2. We did all sorts of things to hem them in and cost them money. Was it wise and necessary ? That is another subject.

Darrell Griffin

If Mexico were to start building an army and arsenal, with only North to go with it, would we want to see them have free flowing resources and assets ?

You have two choices. Three actually.
1) Starve your potential adversary of material and resources.
2) Start an arms race and out build them.
3) Both (worked for Reagan)

Taurnil Oronar

The more Rand Paul speaks the less I like him.

Darrell Griffin

Hopefully there are many more like you.

Conservator1

Here’s an interesting video produced by the LiberalViewer. Compare Ted Cruz’s presidential response to Paul’s isolationism which he dared to compare his views to Reagan:

That’s a very good one. Thanks for the link. I shall add it to the folder of similar links.

Conservator1

He compares himself to Bush 41 which begs a simple question. Would Rand have invested the time to form a worldwide coalition to invade Iraq, push them out of Kuwait and then, established a no-fly zone in Iraq?

Heck, no way; Paul wouldn’t have taken the same actions as Bush, let alone Reagan.

Laurel

I could make a case that Bush 41 screwed up and caused the current misery.

Darrell Griffin

Bush 41 was limited by what had been approved. We could have removed Saddam right then and there, but the Useless Nations and the Dem controlled Congress had only authorized (funded) the expulsion from Kuwait.

Unlike the current occupant of 1600, he stayed within the limits of his authorizations and funding. At least on that issue.

Laurel

Ummm…dear Bush 41 actually pushed for that deal.

Darrell Griffin

Agreed, it was the only one he could get.

He was faced with limited action, or to let the annexation of Kuwait stand….no action.

Laurel

My Uncle was there in that administration. Bush didn’t push in any other direction. He was too afraid of it turning into a Vietnam or Korea. Remember who his top military adviser was? None other than Colin Powell.

It is why people went Ross Perot who turned out to be prophetic about trade. Between his reinstalling Saddam back into Iraq and raising taxes, people were ticked. And really the Democrats just outmaneuvered him at every turn. I have to ask what the point of that whole Desert Storm was since we get nothing but grief from the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. They aren’t our friends and like all Arabs they talk out both sides of their mouth.

This country seems to be stuck in kinder gentler war mode and they just don’t work. Afghanistan should no longer exist* and Iraq should be a beacon on a shining hill. I have no problem going to war when it is warranted. I also have no problem nation building when it is warranted. What I do have a problem with is our half heart-ed efforts at both. Neither can be done on the cheap and every time it is tried it ends up costing us more, not less.

*This is speculation but I cannot help but wonder if it would have been necessary to go to war with Iraq if we leveled Afghanistan. Saddam, like Qaddafi, just might have given up his weapons among other things. Saddam was a master at saving himself. When we project doubt and weakness the ME interprets that as a green light. It is part of their culture. Every single thing they do or say is based in power. Even the women do it.

Darrell Griffin

Can’t disagree with your points. Powell, face palm. How could I have forgotten his role.

This is my problem with Ron Paul and his son Rand. Blaming the USA for all our enemies attacking us? This is pure cowardice and leadership from behind! Let’s just close our eyes and hope no one gets angry with us? This is their idea of leadership through strength? Rand/Ron Paul may be great on many issues domestically but are failures on threats to national security. Their position is hide and hope no one gets mad at us = FAILURE!

There’s a difference between blaming and discussing facts. Fact: Japan would have not attacked us at Pearl Harbor had we not directly involved ourselves. If we were so worried about any of it we would have directly involved ourselves militarily a decade early opposed to letting Chinese and European men, women, and children die at the hands of evil men. Instead we thought we’d passively involve ourselves and let others die and then Pearl Harbor happened.

That’s what you types always forget. It was the exact isolationist/ non-interventionist/ head in the sand/ mind our own business policy being promoted now that we had then.

How did that work out ? It didn’t. It never does. In the entirety of world history, no nation of our size and footprint CAN “mind its own business” without consequence.

Had we stayed out completely, we would have had no allies or help once Eurasia was consolidated under Axis rule.

Laurel

I have some serious issues with their domestic crap as well…especially Ron Paul.

PhillyCon

Between this and the social issue thing, what a huge turn off.

Tom B

What’s funny is Paul is correct and he knows his history very well.America did totally cut off Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor and by doing this we created a very hostile situation.What Paul is really saying is that we shouldn’t go around the world and bully nations and expect not to have any blowback.

Darrell Griffin

You might want to actually look at what Japan did BEFORE those sanctions were imposed, the threat they were becoming, and why we cut off their resources

That way you wouldn’t post something that exposes you as an idiot….like you did here.

Tom B

Who’s the bigger idiot for getting thousands of people killed in WW2 airhead?Was it all worth the body bags IDIOT!

Darrell Griffin

Thousands died because we didn’t engage sooner Nimrod. It cost over 6000 alone on D-Day.

You know, where we had to get a foothold in Europe, because Hitler occupied all of it ?

Had Hitler been contained a decade earlier, MILLIONS would have been spared.

Darrell Griffin

We lost over 2000 on 7 December, 1941.

I suppose that was our fault too. By all means keep arguing the position. It helps expose Rand as the fraud he is on foreign policy.

Gene White

3,500 actually.

Conservator1

You’re the bigger idiot. If America stayed on the sidelines, how many more millions would Hitler’s Germany and Japan have killed?

After they conquered Asia, Europe, Middle East and Africa, how long do you think it would have taken them to launch a war against America fought on the mainland pal?

tinlizzieowner

the Japanese did (technically) attack mainland America. The Germans had subs in the Gulf of Mexico, sinking American ships before we entered WW2.

Darrell Griffin

They also could arguably have taken Alaska (and its resources) with minimal opposition early in that game.

tinlizzieowner

They did capture 2 of the Alaskan Islands.

Darrell Griffin

Yup, but they very well could be eating with chopsticks on the North Slope.

Laurel

They actually tried to do just that.

Darrell Griffin

Exactly.

Hey Tom, let me help you out. There’s an old board game called “Axis and Allies” The axis wins most of the time by the way.

We didn’t get involved because of Adolph Hitler, the holocaust, or anything else. The only reason we directly involved ourselves, militarily, in WW2 was because of the Japanese and Pearl Harbor.

Conservator1

Now, did I say we got involved in WW II because of “the holocaust, or anything else?”

No I didn’t. I asked a question about what would have happened if we had put our heads in the sand, like Rand Paul and Paulbots recommend.

BTW, your history is wrong as well. Long before Pearl Harbor, FDR began supplying Britain with aid, military and food.

“…Roosevelt’s sympathies clearly lay with the British and French, but he was hamstrung by the Neutrality Acts and a strong isolationist bloc in American politics. Upon the outbreak hostilities in September 1939, FDR re-asserted American neutrality, noting, however, that he could not “ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.” He did his best, then, to nudge the United States towards supporting Great Britain, supplying that nation with all aid “short of war.” This strategy had three main effects. First, it offered Britain both psychological encouragement and materiel aid, though often more of the former than the latter. Second, it bought the United States time to shore up its military preparedness, which was inadequate for a world war. Finally, it made the United States an active, if undeclared, participant in the war.

In the fall of 1939, FDR won a slight revision of the Neutrality Act, which now allowed belligerents to buy arms in the United States, but only with cash and only if they transported their purchases themselves, a provision called “cash and carry.” Nearly one year later, the United States and Great Britain struck a deal in which the Americans loaned the British fifty mothballed destroyers in return for the use of eight British military bases. And in March 1941, FDR won enactment of a Lend-Lease program that allowed the British and other allies continued access to American arms and supplies despite their rapidly deteriorating financial situation. The huge sum of $7 billion that Congress appropriated would eventually reach more than $50 billion.

The war took a vital turn that same year. After failing to subdue the British through the air—the so-called “Battle of Britain” in which the Royal Air Force emerged victorious over the German Luftwaffe—Hitler made two fateful decisions. First, he launched a massive invasion of his former ally, the Soviet Union. Second, he tried to conquer the British by choking that island nation from the sea, ordering Nazi submarines to attack British shipping in the North Atlantic. The two decisions only drew the United States more deeply into the war. FDR extended lend-lease aid to the Soviets. More important, he ordered the American Navy to the North Atlantic first to “patrol” that region and then to “escort” British ships. This latter order allowed the Navy to fire on German subs at sight. By the fall of 1941, Germany and the United States were at war in all but name.

Roosevelt’s leadership during this period was crucial, although far from flawless. He and British prime minister Winston Churchill formed an effective team, and crafted a joint statement of their nations’ war goals, called the “Atlantic Charter,” in August 1941. This cooperation extended to both leaders’ subordinates, who began planning in earnest for the coming war. At home, FDR managed to quiet the isolationist howls that greeted his “short of war” strategy and to further the process of rebuilding and re-arming America’s military…”

The war was going on before the US was officially involved in it. Millions more would have died had the US not joined in to help. The fact that back then our guys were expected to fight to win, is what saved millions more.

Conservator1

Paul isolationists, like the left, blame America first because the facts reveal America acted and saved ourselves and the workd. Facts are dangerous to isolationist Paulbots,

Laurel

Plus they don’t have to look at the cost of isolationism itself. The very isolationism is what caught us with our pants down and caused more death exponentially.

Darrell Griffin

Also, by your reasoning.

If Russia decides to start building an army and arsenal for imperial ambitions, we should be perfectly OK with selling them the resources and facilitating their rapid development and deployment.

Heck, they can start violating territorial integrity of other nations and “annexing” places….. Oh wait….;…

Facepalm.

Gene White

Yes, Tom, they did. But they did it for a reason.

Laurel

People like you seem to think we are obligated to sell, and in the case of Japan it was give, our oil and resources to evil regimes.

Yeah, I despise her too, but I just had to watch the video to get my own perspective.

Mark Salinger

If anyone ACTUALLY watches the video Rand mostly spoke on his views about the pitfalls of how to deal with Iran and in describing those pitfalls Paul mentions the example of Japan deciding to attack us after we imposed sanctions upon them.

NOWHERE does he say that it was our fault, but rather that there are unforeseen reactions to each of our own actions. That shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Let’s have some honesty and objectivity.

Darrell Griffin

ACTUALLY watching the video gives insight into his thinking. His world view. His way of “strategery”.

It’s also an invitation to others that are watching. I would definitely like to play poker with the man 🙂

Gene White

Mark, perhaps I don’t speak for everyone else, but I believe that Rand Paul and his father, by their comments and beliefs, present our nation as weaker than I would like. It is simply dangerous, to have other world leaders, some of whom do not have our best interests at heart, see us in that manner.

Mark Salinger

I get what you are saying, but I’ve always heard it said we should “speak softly, but carry a big stick” or that “actions speak louder than words”.

My own belief is that we would be unwise not to have the MOST powerful military on the planet, but on the same token I think we’d be unwise to assume that power can be used with impunity in every circumstance.

I choose to believe that Rand Paul thinks this way as well and that that’s all he was expressing here. His words make me think so, but I could be naïve too.

Gene White

He and his father may be pure in their beliefs, but offering their opinions on the world stage, in the manner they do, endangers our security.

Darrell Griffin

It also invites trouble.

See: Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, etc. ad nauseum.

Mark Salinger

You are totally right regarding Ron Paul and this overlap between him and the Russians is disturbing to say the least.

I was never a fan of Ron Paul specifically due to his foreign policy insanity and his tin foil hat kook presentation style. Other policies I liked, but very much disliked the messenger.

My hope has been that Rand was different from his father in those regards and that he formed a good melding that would present libertarian ideas in a better way and form a wider voter bloc.

Still hoping that this is the case and I don’t yet believe that Rand himself has made unreasonable foreign policy remarks that come close to the insanity that billows from his father. We shall see.

Darrell Griffin

Same ideas “present libertarian ideas in a better way”.
Same kooky insanity just smarter “messaging”.

For the EXACT reasons you just laid out. The moment folks figure out he’s a different nut from the same tree, then he becomes a fringe candidate…..like the older nut.

$3273457

He didn’t have to come right out and say it. It was
Implied. In his mind, our enemies only act aggressively when we provoke them. It is naive and stupid!

Mark Salinger

You and others choose that interpretation given the history of his father. I can’t fault you for that, but I still think it’s incorrect.

Darrell Griffin

It’s up to him to show where we’re wrong.

He isn’t. He’s cementing those concerns.

marketcomp

No. Not true. This is all Rand Paul.

Joseph ewing

If you are looking for honesty and objectivity, ask yourself this:

If Nancy Pelosi said the same thing, would you be making excuses for her?

Laurel

You are a Rand apologist…but most do not buy the spin.

TJinNJ

Next candidate. Heard enough out of this clown.

$3273457

“Blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor is a long-standing isolationist habit that reflects tremendous historical illiteracy.”

That’s more or less what I was going to say.

I am also stunned at Paul’s completely left-wing argument that our enemies only attack us in response to our actions. The argument is that as long as we are nice to the bad guys, then they’ll be nice to us. And how did that work out for Great Britain and the rest of Europe after they signed the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany? They allowed the Nazis to get away with annexing parts of other countries, for crying out loud! Ironically, it was Europe’s weakness that provoked the Nazis.

Rand Paul obviously does not comprehend that despots are provoked by weakness, not strength!!

Obviously, the apple has not fallen far from the Paul family tree!

Darrell Griffin

Ask them how they explain dealing with Muslim nations that hold grudges that are over 1000 years old. From before our nation was born.

Crickets in reply.

Gene White

It might be a little late in the conversation to throw this in, but here is a site link that gives a good breakdown of the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Add to that, the Philippines was an American Colony. A very resource rich, American Colony. Attacking the Philippines would have brought America into the war, period. It was already in the plan to destroy the American fleet, before attacking the Philippines, which the Japanese did on Dec. 8th.

Gene White

I love a man who knows his History. 🙂

tinlizzieowner

I work in a military museum. I have access to things that have been deliberately been buried in the dust bin of American history, ‘for our own good’, as they say. 😉 😉
I’ve also had the opportunity (and honor) of meeting and talking with the (surviving) Doolittle Raiders, The Tuskeegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers, members of the AVG (Flying Tigers), men who were in the first wave of GI’s to hit Omaha Beach on ‘D-Day’ and a whole bunch of other first hand American war history. On top of that, I’m a Viet Nam Vet.

Gene White

You’re living a dream. 🙂

tinlizzieowner

I’ll tell ya what Gene. It can make a guy real humble to hang out with the likes of these men.
I know Battan Death March survivors, B-17 crew members who were in German POW camps, guys who fought in Korea, 3 Viet Nam POWs and a lot of other ‘walking history’.

Gene White

Good people to be around. You don’t have to teach History to those who have lived it.

tinlizzieowner

While they last. I’ve lost 3 WW2 Vet friends so far this year and it’s only April. :-{

Consider that, the price you pay, for having such a wonderful job in the first place. Would you have it any other way?

tinlizzieowner

No. My Mrs. (also a Vet) and I drive 60 miles round trip to work in the museum and we work there free.
The museum has a staff of about 40 (almost all Vets) but only the museum director and her secretary are paid. The museum director is retired Army, with 2 Iraq tours under her belt. 😉 😉

Gene White

You make my case. As I said before, you are living a dream. On top of that, you have Tinlizzie. 🙂

tinlizzieowner

Don’t forget ‘Da Rumbler’. 🙂

Gene White

That must be the only Chevy powered Rambler in existence. It’s a beuat!

tinlizzieowner

Actually, there’s quite a few of them with Chevy 350’s in them.
It’s the full on custom, ‘chopped’ body and interior that’s one of a kind.

Humble indeed. I don’t expect to have to find out what it must actually be like to face any of that. But I know I would, if called to. After meeting men like this (and I have, many times) I would be ashamed not to.

Most of Japan’s actions before 1941 were to secure territories that would give them resources. They weren’t trying to create a real estate boon.

The life’s blood of manufacturing an empire is those resources and raw materials, as much as a logistical train of fuel, ammo, and food is the life’s blood of any military force.

I know you get that, so many others do not.

speakez6

Strike 5 Rand. You keep exposing what a tard you are…my WWII Grandfather would smack you across your face for comments like that.

Cruz 16

Steven Simmons

Japan did attack us because of our direct involvement. Did that action constitute an act of war? No, but it doesn’t change the fact that Pearl Harbor is directly related to our passive involvement in World War 2.

John Bohler

Passive yes, you could make an augment for that. However that’s not what Rand argued, he claimed that they attacked us because we got TOO involved.

Laurel

Rand is the type that sees someone getting the heck beat out of them and would run t other way under the guise of ‘minding his own business’.

Japan was expanding an empire. They made a deal with the AXIS powers. A nation simply doesn’t commit those kinds of resources over such minor issues as those that the Paulbots keep bringing up.

$3273457

By the way, Obama sat back and said nothing during the protests a few years ago in Iran. Obviously he did not want to anger the Iranian government by siding with the opposition. As a result, all of those pro-democracy protesters were hung out to dry.
How did that appeasement plan work out for us, Senator Paul? Did the mad mullahs change their minds about their nuclear development plans? Did they stop chanting “DEATH TO AMERICA”?

John Bohler

TIME interviewer: It’s not only Barack Obama who has been advocating a more cautious foreign policy. It’s also Republicans.

“Agreed. You’ve seen me out there taking on the Paul faction. I did during the campaign. I took on Ron Paul at debate after debate on Iran, on Pakistan. I see the Rand Paul wing of the Republican Party for what it is: allied with Barack Obama’s foreign policy. I think that’s a very serious threat to our own security.” ~Rick Santorum

PNWShan

I had a high opinion of Rick Santorum’s foreign policy statements during the campaign. He spoke as if he really knew what foreign policy was about and how and why other countries behave the ways they do.

John Bohler

Quite frankly of the current lineup of candidates going to 2016 he is the most knowledgeable on at least the foreign policy issues.

PhillyCon

Santorum made Iran an issue in his losing campaign to Casey. He knew he was toast, but he wanted to use the campaign as an opportunity to educate on the growing threat of Iran.

$91628314

The reason America cut off trade with Japan was because Japan had attacked many of its neighbors. In 1905, it occupied Korea and Taiwan. In the early 1930’s, it began an aggressive campaign against China. America wanted to stop Japan’s aggressive behavior and thus limiting Japan’s access to resources would hopefully send a message to curb it’s appetite for war. But instead or reining in it’s destructive behavior Japan decided to retaliate against the United States and the rest is history.

Rand Paul is essentially blaming America for the atrocities committed by Japan. Needless to say that is a warped world view and Rand Paul should be ashamed of himself. So what Rand Paul is saying is if America had continued trading with Japan then Japan wouldn’t have attacked Pearl Harbor. But the fact of the matter is Japan was hell-bent on war whether America traded with them or not and the proof was abundantly evident. Japan was attacking its neighbors and therefore America was trying to stop Japanese aggression but Japan obviously didn’t heed the warning.

Blaming America for Japan’s ruthless behavior is akin to blaming the United States for the toppling of the Twin Towers by Muslim terrorists. It reveals a flaw in Rand Paul’s personality. He is blaming (the victim) America for the ruthless acts committed by other nations. And as such I predict he will never be President of the United States. I would go a step further and say he may in fact lose his seat on the U.S. Senate. Especially after endorsing the campaign of Mitch McConnell, a man who despises the Tea Party.

I think Rand Paul is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people just like his dad tried to do. His main priority is looking out for number one in my opinion. And I don’t mean America. It is political posturing for the purpose of political expediency and I think the American people are wising up to him. This latest revelation adds more fuel to the fire and if he runs for President in 2016 his campaign will likely go up in smoke. Blaming America for the evil of others is not a winning strategy needless to say.

Laurel

Japan also failed to pay it’s bills and we were in a depression at the time.

Darrell Griffin

Nations have gone to war to collect those bills. We didn’t.

More like the power company or any other utility, we just cut off the flow of resources that they couldn’t pay for…..and were stealing from others.

Laurel

That is exactly what we did. We cut it off.

Steven Simmons

Was it right for Japan to do what they did at Pearl Harbor? No. Did they do it because of our actions? Yes; its ignorant, uneducated, and short sighted to claim otherwise. People seem to think its an apology or something to say otherwise or even a means to dissuade us from doing something similar again but it is not; its simply stating the facts. Had we involved ourselves with China and Japan then it never would have happened. We were passively involved with WW2 for a while in an attempt to stay out of direct combat and only provide supplies and the occasional loaner pilot.

Darrell Griffin

We were passively involved and took the limited actions we did, because the nation mostly had the EXACT isolationist sentiment the “Paul Doctrine” espouses. “Mind our own business”.

That’s what drives me nuts. People refuse to learn that lesson, ignore it, or weren’t taught it. The cost of waiting almost a decade only increased the bill in blood and treasure.

Now many would have us repeat those same mistakes. To do so is ignorant, short sighted, and uneducated.

John Bohler

That’s not the root of Rand’s point, he believe we’re responsible because our sanctions against them for waging genocidal warfare against China made them “angry”

“There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.” ~Rand Paul

KenInMontana

“and the occasional loaner pilot.”

If by this you are referring to the 1st AVG, better known as the “Flying Tigers”, you should be aware that they were in fact mercenaries in the pay of the Chinese Nationalists. They were not “loaner pilots”.

GaryZiz

Wow. I just watched the whole video. That is such a dishonest title. I get why Scoop is trying to kneecap Paul, but this is really going into the sewer.

Darrell Griffin

It’s his position. Not mischaracterized at all. Straight from the horse’s mouth.

If the title said “Paul blames America for Pearl Harbor”, you would have a point.

Nope. Cruz came in voting against Kerry and said that the reason he did it was because of his position against the soldiers from Vietnam. And to me that was fantastic.

Laurel

Me either but Cruz already has an ill informed birther movement.

Darrell Griffin

LOL, who are most of them ? Paulbots.

Same problem, different issue.

Laurel

Valid point!

marketcomp

Given the evidence presented on this thread I am certain that the polls seen lately showing Sen. Paul ahead are rigged.
This is unbelievable what people will do to boost their personalities:
I notice that the polls never show real stats like here:

My daughter has worked CPAC the last two years and she said it is invaded by the Liberaltarians. She always ends up debating a few into the ground. It’s not hard since the logic is selfish and circular.

Darrell Griffin

I used to attend CPAC given the proximity to central VA. I stopped going almost 6 years ago, because it is infested with Paulbots much in the same way a downtown, basement mechanical room is infested with roaches and/or rats.

Vorlath –

Since when is Rand Paul Tea Party?

Laurel

Rand Paul was elected on the Tea Party wave dear.

Wigglesworth

Paul won’t be any better than Obama on foreign policy, illegal immigration or as CiC of the military.

Japan used American steal to build their Navy and Air force. If anything that was our only mistake. Japan was a rouge country with an evil leadership just as Germany and they worked hand in hand and murdered hundreds of thousands of people all over this planet. Was America to blame?….Only for being stupid….if not for America this world would be a much different place today…No matter what Americas involvement was that didn’t give them reason to attack the rest of the world. This was not a battle between America and them it was a battle between Japan/German against the rest of the Globe.

I had high hopes in this guy. In some ways I still do. He says the right things, but he just destroys them with comments like these.

Darrell Griffin

Saying the right things does not make one the right person.

Laurel

I’m still stuck on ‘saying the right things”…

-.^

Darrell Griffin

I was trying to be nice. Booker isn’t a Paulbot, so beating him over the head isn’t necessary.

Laurel

I know…it just gets me when I continually hear that out of people. It tells me this country is really really economically as well as Constitutionally illiterate.

maynardb50

I ain’t voting for him OR Christi. Tired of the BS.

Mac in Texas

I got a bad feeling for 2016 that this guy is going to be the stealth ross perot. Just remember the 4 to 5 million whiners who stayed home and helped the demoncat party steal the white house for a 2nd time.

Laurel

He could play the spoiler.

SurfinUSA

Between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush????

Git outa here 😉

Darrell Griffin

Paulbots will be Paulbots.

Paul Hoffmann

What Rand said is old news. Only ignorants and dupes still believe the Party Line.

Darrell Griffin

Project much ? Like most conservatives, I think for myself.

Unfortunately, the Paul cult isn’t that dissimilar from the useful idiot liberal constituency.

Paul Hoffmann

Conservatives don’t think for themselves. But go ahead and think so, if you want. That’s what McCain, Christie, Bush, and Cheney would want you to believe. The only difference betw conservatives and liberals is that at least conservatives are less dishonest about what football pennant they worship. Liberals lie that they’re anti-war, but in practice attack even more countries than the Conservatives who outright admit that they want to attack every country possible. The difference between the two camps is purely cosmetic and rhetorical to fool the football fans into believing that they have a choice. It’s all style devoid of substance. To label oneself a “Conservative” means you don’t think for yourself. Same thing with “Liberals”. I stopped believing in that binary paradigm when I was 15 already. So try to grow up.

Laurel

You need to medication for your anger management.

Darrell Griffin

Made my point for me, didn’t he ?

Laurel

Yes he did. I love it when people come on with a superiority complex only to expose themselves to be idiots.

Conservator1

Perhaps he is related to Abbie Hoffman; it would explain his lunacy.

Laurel

Quite possibly. I’ve seen some rants that are good…his isn’t one of them.

Vorlath –

The definition of conservative is someone who is independent. You’ve been brainwashed I’m afraid. You’ve bought into the Liberal mantra hook, line and sinker.

marketcomp

It may be old news but it still resides in Rand Paul’s mine which is dangerous for America.

SurfinUSA

The reparations that the Allies demanded from Germany after WWI planted the seeds for World War II. The Germans were seething for the entire 20 years between the wars.

Darrell Griffin

No, Germany’s aggression planted the seeds of their own humiliation. When you start a World War and lose, there are consequences.

This is like saying the bully that got beat up by one of his victims was justified to shoot up his office 20 years later.

You’re also minimalizing Hitler’s ability to stoke the flames of discontent, even with rational people. Much like Obama does.

I’d be rather angry to if a couple of degenerate democracies blamed me for something I didn’t start too. As well as made sure that a couple of the old world European countries turned into dumb-ocracy, paving the way for Uncle Adolf.

There was less than 3 years in between the end of WWI and Hitler becoming the leader of the Nazi Party.

As I posted in the other link, the German economy was screwed before the war ended….because those leaders bet on winning and consolidating the vanquished to pay the debt to finance it.

It was a war of aggression in which the German government bet their finances on a quick victory. They lost.

SurfinUSA

I don’t spend my time reading every posting or cataloging the writer. My point is that Germany disintegrated before the Armistice in many ways. The British blockade had nearly starved the population. You want to start the story after the causes of its demise. Hitler wouldn’t have gotten the attention of the soldiers in Munich without the events of the end of the war. The Central government was still strong enough to put down Hitler’s 1923 rebellion.

One of the main points I made to Laurel’s terse, snide comment was that the people blamed the Kaiser and his government for their plight. That was mostly right. But they still didn’t acknowledge their own complicity. Obviously the Kaiser didn’t fire all the guns even though he had the ultimate responsibility. German arrogance got them into the mess they made and it took the deaths of 50-75 million in Europe until it was all over in 1945.

Darrell Griffin

“German arrogance got them into the mess they made”

Which is what my original point was. Germany had nobody to blame but themselves. “Germany’s aggression planted the seeds of their own humiliation.”

Hitler did what Obama does. He used events as a ladder to make his climb. Lucky for him that so many incompetents preceded him.

SurfinUSA

Darrell, I don’t think we disagreed on the underlying character of the Germans. I tried to extend the conversation back to the ragged end of World War I. Then Laurel tried to discredit my statement by saying that was Woodrow Wilson’s view. Well, it was more than that and I tried to support it with a lengthy outline of events. She came back with a sophomoric screed that put my knickers in a wad. If I offended you it was misdirected anger at her. But, as we agree, the bottom line is that Hitler was a creation of World War I and he wouldn’t have been able to exploit the arrogance of the Germans had the first war ended definitively.

FDR was determined not to have another ending to the second war as the first. Early on he voiced “unconditional surrender”, much to the chagrin of Winston Churchill, as the only option acceptable to end hostilities. The final months of the air war over Dresden and Hamburg were fueled by disputes dating back to 1919. The Allies and Russia were going to make damn sure it would not happen again.

Darrell Griffin

It is you who should re-read yours. The Germs were screwed unless they won a quick and decisive victory.

Hitler spent less than 3 years between the end of WWI and become the leader of the Nazi Party.

He used the Treaty of Versailles as a key talking point. “Hitler was now gaining notoriety outside of the Nazi Party for his rowdy, at times hysterical tirades against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians and political groups, especially Marxists, and always the Jews. ”

This was not 20 years of languishing. This was a calculated campaign that was executed very much like Obama railing about “Healthcare” and “Social Justice”.

GaryZiz

The point is Hitler would never have come to power if there wasn’t hyperinflation in Germany. Hyperinflation only came about because of the severity of the reparations.

Laurel

Umm…no.

Darrell Griffin

Nonsense. Hyperinflation solely caused by reparations is also nonsense.

That was one of the circumstances, coupled with many others, used for his ascent. For his talking points. To assign a Boogie Man. Alinsky tactics before Alinski wrote the book.

Again, just like Obama and the Great Recession. Hitler amplified bad circumstances to a nation humiliated and economically weak to advance himself.

Darrell Griffin

The debt for Germany to mount the war is what did them in. Not the reparations.

Their economy was screwed before the first shot was fired. Inflation had kicked in before its conclusion.

That maybe Woody’s version, but it is true, not because of who said it but because it’s the truth. It will stand on it’s own regardless of who said what. Your only job as a discerning individual, is to perceive the truth as it is, not as the warmonger, neocon, tighty rightys or the marxist fascist leftys want you to believe. It is a fact that, from a foreign policy that is executed, there are effects and consequences, some foreseen, some not. Those consequences that were alluded to by the Doves are still horrific and real whether your a repub or a demo. In examining the words of the likes of Rand or Jeb, It is the Constitution that controls government behavior; at least it used to be.The effects and consequences of foreign policy are best examined by the fruits that arise from their implementation in history. Now you have your answer to whether Rand is correct. The cascade that must necessarily flow from bad foreign policy, will leave the same stench in the nostrils as that of WW1 and WW2. Ultimately it will be our shame.

Laurel

When you say things like this…”Your only job as a discerning individual, is to perceive the truth as it
is, not as the warmonger, neocon, tighty rightys or the marxist fascist
leftys want you to believe.”

I automatically discount what you have to say. It lacks intellect and smacks of tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Furthermore I do not need a stranger on a blog with his self evident arrogance telling me what ‘my only job’ is.

Now as to the topic at hand. Did Europe go overboard in regards to Germany? Maybe…hindsight is always 20/20. People like you seem to sit on your perch and disregard the circumstances in total. Events happen in multiples and they certainly did so with WWI. For starters that was ‘the war to end all wars’ so Europe and the rest of the world had never ever seen that kind of carnage. Prior it was the stuff of history books at best. The horrors of that war are still legendary. Of course the retribution of the victor is going to be hard under those circumstances. Europe lost far more men and was at war far longer than America. That war forever changed the face of Europe. The domino effect was enormous.

Next up, Hitler exploited the situation for personal gain. There simply is no denying it unless you would like to go on record of denying the events and mindset that led up to and including the Holocaust itself. Hitler blamed every Jew in sight as well as expounded Germany’s superiority with extreme nationalism. Effects of first WW was a rabid ready made excuse. Nothing more. We can only speculate if Hitler would of rose regardless of WWI effects. We will never know for certain.

And no…things don’t always stand on their own regardless of who said them. Credibility counts.

It’s an easy prediction to make in regards ‘to consequences alluded to by Doves’ since it is on par with the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. There are always consequences to every action. Some predictable, some not. But consequences are not necessarily the same as costs, and costs get weighed in the total balance.

dwn

Wow, I kinda like you Laurel. I don’t however use tin foil. My intellect is what it is and your short shot only hurt for a minute. I’m not arrogant, but I’m sick of the spew coming from the mouths of pols who have agendas that have nothing to do with the national interest. Rand is suspect in this regard as well, Although the spew is less repugnant. I hope Cruz will make a go of it and blow everyone out of the water. The behavior of our government is lawless, therefore the foreign policy being executed is suspect and not credible. Anything this administration does, whether sanctions or war, treaties, agreements and such will not be credible because they have demonstrated that they are lawless. History is very helpful in providing some perspective about cause and effect. Don’t beat me over the head because I point that out. If you call me arrogant again I’ll take my toys and go home.

Laurel, what did they teach you in school? Let’s look at a few facts. I know its inconvenient because its easier to blame an individual instead of historical events. I’m no fan of Wilson by any stretch but you are inaccurate in saying German anger was Wilson’s “version.”

(1) The Germans were told they would be consulted by the Allies on the contents of the Treaty. They were not. That angered them.

(2) The Germans were in no position to continue the war as her army had all but disintegrated. Though this lack of consultation angered them, there was nothing they could do about it.

(3) There was anger throughout Germany when the terms were made public. The Treaty became known as a “Diktat” – as it was being forced on them and the Germans had no choice but to sign it.

(4) Many in Germany did not want the Treaty signed, but the representatives there knew that they had no choice as German was incapable of restarting the war again.

(5) Signing it left a mood of anger throughout Germany as it was felt that as a nation Germany had been unfairly treated.

(6) Above all else, Germany hated the clause blaming her for the cause of the war and the resultant financial penalties the treaty was bound to impose on Germany.

(7) Many German citizens felt that they were being punished for the mistakes of the German government in August 1914 as it was the government that had declared war, not the people.

(8) Germany signed the Treaty which meant that she accepted the “guilt” clause accepting responsibility for starting the war.

(9) Germany tried to pay reparations when she could do so. She did not refuse to pay in 1922. She simply could not produce what was needed that year and this led to the French invasion of the Ruhr.

(10) In the 1920’s it was the Allies who took the decision to reduce reparations and eased Germany’s plight in so doing. The first instance of refusal to pay reparations came in 1933 when Hitler announced that Germany would not pay – and the Allies did nothing.

I’m not defending the German reaction. The Versailles Treaty was vindictive and so demanding that the Germans could not meet its terms. The U.S. Senate agreed with the Germans and did not pass the Versailles Treaty.

After the Senate defeat, Wilson started a nationwide speaking tour in order to “sell” the Versailles Treaty to the American people. Wilson suffered a massive stroke that left him as an invalid the rest of his life. His wife Edith and his Chief of Staff ran the Executive Branch of the Government secretly for the last 18 months of his term.

History is more than propaganda and one sentence drive by comments. I’ve been reading history for 55 years and find it fascinating. Try it, you might like it.

Laurel

No. Let’s not. You are way too late with your ‘facts’.

And dear heart you are an arrogant nitwit. Not only have I been reading history, I have a minor in it, but I also have a daughter whose specialty is WWI…and yes she has the degrees to prove it.

And next time you post your arrogance you just might want to read more of the thread first. I actually posted much of the same thing but it is not as much fact as it is hindsight and speculation. We have no way of knowing if Hitler would of started WWII regardless of the outcomes of WWI.

SurfinUSA

sorry b**ch

sarsectank

Does it matter who inflamed which populations concerning decades old events? The fact of the matter is “sanctions” are illogical, they always hurt the people while the leaders live high on the hog, take a look at North Korea, Saddam’s Iraq, Fidel’s Cuba.

Peeving off the general population of a country to impotently punish it’s leader actually does make more people hate you.

Darrell Griffin

Not imposing sanctions allows those leaders to become more aggressive and powerful sooner.

Or should we allow a bank robber to leave with the vault money, because he threatens to shoot one of the bank’s customers ?

sarsectank

We should not deny the robber’s child food while the robber spends the money in Vegas.

Laurel

Do you really call that logic?

There is no ‘we’ when it comes to denying food to children. There is only ‘they’ as in despots. You seem to forget all that goes with being a despot. You remind me of a kindergartner who says something that on it’s surface seems so simple and smart and all the adults applaud and say “if children ruled the world…”…only to think it over and realize life isn’t that simple.

It’s like saying “There would be no wars if no one would fight” or the left’s logic “ban all guns and the killing will stop!”

And yes we absolutely should deny the robber’s child food while he is in Vegas. Life has consequences and sometimes those consequences are harsh…as it should be.

sarsectank

What evil have you done in your life that your children should suffer for? Anyway, despite your accusations of child-likeness while you where being childish in those accusations, you have not explained how hurting the population without hurting the leader, hurts the leader.

Darrell Griffin

See the French Revolution for your answer.

sarsectank

Oh the French Revolution was the result of sanctions? Who ended up coming out on top of that conflict anyway? Who was that again? Ohhh right the guy that took over Europe before Hitler, Napoleon.

Darrell Griffin

No, you missed the point. Or you’re so blinded by emotional arguments you fail to see it.

What do dictators fear more than anything ? A popular uprising. Like the French Revolution. Their loss of power. Being beheaded by a throng of the huddled masses rising in revolt due to their conditions with pitch forks. What usually always happens when a dictatorship falls ? The oligarchs and generals are lined up against the wall. Supporters, family, and the dictator are executed without remorse.

Get the point now ? Probably not.

They don’t “care about the kids” or any other straw man emotional nonsense you put forward. They only care about their power. Obtaining more of it, and keeping it. They are willing to do whatever it takes, no matter how inhumane or brutal, to do so. No matter the cost.

By not imposing sanctions, you allow the dictator to cement his power, because the subjects are comfortable. He/she then uses that power base and looks to expand. The people are mostly happy or at least dependent on the dictator, so they are free to “explore other opportunities”.

Examples of this are found throughout human history. It’s called leftism. Totalitarianism. Or any other “ism” you can think of.

Why did most empires conquer the known world ? Because they could.

sarsectank

When will we being seeing this in North Korea? We didn’t see it in Cuba, or Iraq, it certainly isn’t hurting Putin. The fact you have to reach back so far to an event that birthed a conqueror, shows how hollow your position is.

Darrell Griffin

I reach back so far, because ALL of human history has similar spectacles. Including Cuba, Iraq, and N. Korea.

The fact that you ignore it demonstrates your ignorance. You don’t know propaganda when you see it ? If our country were a dictatorship, you would see the same spectacle celebrating Obamacare.

Do you really think people enjoy living under despotism ? To have government controlling every aspect of their lives ?Depending on them for everything ? That the human spirit enjoys being ruled ?

Do you really think that the deaths of those despots and all the “crying” and other staged emotion was real ?

Do you really believe that in those countries 90% plus vote for those dictators EVERY election ? That they are beloved and mourned ? That they enjoy 98% approval in their polls ?

The truth is that if those people don’t act the part, and show the proper and EXPECTED outpouring, they get shot or someone in their family does.

The Soviet Union was the same. Every other leftist dictatorship is the same. Always has been, always will be. That is historical fact. Past, present, and future.

If you think or believe otherwise, you are irrevocably stupid. Go back to whatever school you learned history from and demand a refund.

sarsectank

I’m stupid huh? Well you better go back and read the conversation again. My point was that sanctions don’t work to hurt a leader. This was countered by someone claiming a leader under sanctions craves the love of his people. I responded that a dictator gets that “love” from the barrel of a gun. You’re right it’s all fake, and that was my point, thanks for agreeing with me.

Darrell Griffin

You are right about the point of a gun. I confused one nonsensical position with another.

To your point.

They can’t buy more guns, or anything else, if sanctions are in place. Only that which is obtained by those who break those constraints.They can’t build an army or arsenal to become an immediate and direct threat. They can’t prepare to invade their neighbors and/or seize other resources.

They can only try to squeeze blood from a turnip. Their own populations and limited resources.

Without sanctions, limitations, or restrictions, they become more powerful and dangerous faster. The only limit that exists are those they impose on themselves. Such persons are not known to impose such limits. Period.

They then become a threat that must be dealt with now, or pay a higher cost later. Not a question of if, but when. A day of reckoning will always come. As history demonstrates again and again. See: Adolph Hitler/ US isolationism pre-WWII.

Either way the “poor kids still starve and die”, so the “do it for the kids” nonsense is just that. Nonsense.

So unless you would advocate for a war every few years or so, the BEST policy, not the perfect policy, is containment through sanctions.
Otherwise, we would spend all of our time crushing dictators that rise out of other failed dictatorships, only to do what the previous dictator did….per your example of Napoleon.

Ethiopian kids had heck of a gut on them too- doesn’t prove much does it?

sarsectank

True, but they also don’t have double chins like Saddam, clearly his gut was not from lack of food.

Laurel

Don’t you just love Paulbots?

PhillyCon

You and DG are doing yeomans work.

Laurel

You haven’t seen it in those countries because they are being propped up by other countries. N. Korea is propped up by China…and just barely. Not enough that they aren’t eating their children that you seem to think I should care about. The reports of cannibalism are phenomenal. Quite a few books about it as well that are very worth the time.

Cuba hasn’t been sanctioned by the rest of the world but it is mainly Venezuela that props them up. We shall see what happens as the melt down there continues. I’m betting Putin will make Cuba an offer they can’t refuse.

sarsectank

Iran will be propped up as well, sanctions don’t work, you just made my point.

Laurel

Sanctions actually have worked and were working quite well until Obama ignored the Green Movement in Iran.

Once again you displaying your ‘brains’ and your napping through events.

sarsectank

When did they work?

Laurel

I just gave you an example. And like I said repeatedly throughout this thread it’s about making life more difficult but it’s mainly about not being a willing participant in despotism…which is what the Paul boys like to be.

sarsectank

So if you are in a store and it gets held up at gun point and you do nothing because you have no effective options are you a willing participant in the robbery?

Laurel

Not an applicable analogy.

More like if the store gets held up and I offer to hold the bag for them to speed things up…then yes I’m a willing participant.

sarsectank

Holding the bag is not an applicable analogy to non-interventionism.

Laurel

Yes it is. Ask the law.

sarsectank

Which law? The scenario itself goes against reason, holding the bag is an action, inaction is by it’s very definition inaction. You cannot say taking an action (holding the bag) is inaction, because it is indeed an action.

jrt

A leader wants to be adored by its people. its the only thing it cant buy…and they can buy everything but that. Once you can buy anything including power …..its a never ending lust and need for more….greed. All leaders have it but only a few treated it with respect. Reagan was one…

sarsectank

Care to explain the weeping masses when Kim Jong Il died? They don’t need to buy it, they don’t need to earn it, they get it at the barrel of a gun and your sanctions can’t change that.

jrt

That is just torture and fear mangling. This kind of evil is only there so that when we see good we know how good it is…He’ll have his Hell

Laurel

They were paid.

sarsectank

LOL! No they got the business end of a gun to their temples.

Laurel

No they were paid. Look it up and stop being absolutely stupid. And some actually were weeping. It’s apparent you know absolutely nothing of North Korea and the self imposed isolation they have there. Those people really do think their leader is God among other things.

Please feel free to not expound on topics that you have zero knowledge about.

sarsectank

Sanctions are self imposed? Huh, I was certain it required the actions of outside bodies. Some people really did cry? Have a soft spot for communist dictators do you?

Laurel

Can’t read can you?

I said ‘isolationism’.

sarsectank

Yes, they are isolated because of sanctions.

Laurel

Sanctions do not stop people from vacationing in other countries for starters. so in addition to fascism, altruism, and other things you also don’t know what sanctions are comprised of and how many different levels of them there are.

Sanctions also do not keep all media out…including Chinese media. Yes the isolationism is self imposed.

sarsectank

Actually sanctions do impact passports and visas, as well as reporters, see Cuba.

Laurel

No…you see Cuba. It is Castro who has kept reporters out. Our sanctions with Cuba are very specific.

You do know that this country isn’t the only country in the world that has reporters right?

sarsectank

Yup, but it’s smoking gun evidence Cuba alone is not the only body restricting reporters. Your original contention was that it was Castro that kept reporters out, you were wrong. I posted proof.

Laurel

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No it’s not, and talk about moving goal posts.

sarsectank

What no “brains” comment”? You’re running, when things get that juvenile, it means you’re running, you are out of arguments.

Laurel

You ceased posting arguments about two hours ago.

Bye Fascist!

sarsectank

Right I must be a fascist because I don’t want to impose myself on others, makes perfect sense.

Laurel

Because eventually the leader gets the boot.

And if you knew your philosophy and religion you would know children always get hurt regardless. Your logic is touchy feely nonsense.

I’m also going to edit and add that this country has propped up despots in the past in the name of the ‘children’ and in reality it is that thinking that leads down a path of trouble…or did you sleep through the Oil for Food scandal?! There is no logic in letting a dictator of any kind or stripe blackmail the rest of the world because of ‘the children’. I hate to tell you pal but if it comes to some foreign country’s children or mine…guess what under the bus those foreigners go.

Darrell Griffin

Ever notice how liberaltarians make emotional arguments like liberals do ?

Laurel

Yes that is why I call them Liberal-tarians.

Darrell Griffin

I know, I got that from you.

There still is a difference between them and Paulbots. Paulbots have been initiated into the cult.,

Laurel

Paulbots remind of the stupid people that supported Hitler, Mussolini, the KKK, and whole bunch of other idiots throughout history.

They are populists on steroids and the roids have warped their thinking.

sarsectank

The Pauls are pro-liberty, they therefore cannot logically be people that supported fascism.

57thunderbird

The Pauls are isolationists.Period.

sarsectank

But that’s not fascist is it? Hitler was an expansionist.

57thunderbird

So is Putin.What’s your point?Isolationism doesn’t work.

sarsectank

Putin isn’t an isolationist, if he was no one could use sanctions against him. Endless war is even worse.

57thunderbird

I know.I was referring to him as an expansionist just like Hitler.Sorry.I guess I should have been more specific.

sarsectank

It certainly does look like it, but what are we suppose to do about it that would be effective?

Laurel

Ever hear of IMF? G8?

You are one of far too many people that go from zero to sixty.

sarsectank

What would they do?

Laurel

Gee and here I thought you knew everything?? s//

Do some homework Einstein.

sarsectank

So you don’t know either?

Laurel

Actually yeah I do but I’m under no obligation to tell you.

sarsectank

So you don’t know.

Laurel

Yes I do…but you don’t. Anymore childish posts you want to waste my time on?

If you look in the archives of this site you see where I posted what G8 and IMF could do.

sarsectank

I’ve provided links, can you? Or is that too childish for you to stoop to?

Laurel

So? I’m under no obligation to educate you or provide links because you demand it.

Stamp your feet all you like your tantrums are of no value.

sarsectank

I just figured since I am able to provide proof of my statements you would like to do the same. Of course if you can’t then all you post is unproven.

Laurel

Except you provided no proof and you are another that uses childish logical fallacies. Is it a trait or something among Paulbots?

Ordinarily I do provide links but since you seem to be a know it all on every single solitary thing I figured you could find it for yourself.

sarsectank

I have provided proof, that what those links were. I figured since you made claims you could support them, guess I was wrong. All your claims are belong to fiction.

Laurel

No it’s not fascist, and neither is expansionism. You appear to be clueless as to what fascism is.

sarsectank

I was responding to accusations of fascism, thanks for agreeing with me.

Laurel

There ya go displaying your ‘brains’ again. Letting despots and dictators run amok while out of the other side of your mouth crying about ‘the children’ is not pro-liberty. It is lip service without any skin in the game or personal cost to liberty.

And those that loved Hitler, Mussolini, and especially the KKK claimed to be pro-liberty as well. they claimed their rights and liberties were being trampled.

sarsectank

No, fascists were big government types. As for the KKK there doesn’t seem to be any coherent ideology there at all.

Punishing children with sanctions while depots live high on the hog is evil.

Laurel

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Lord amighty but you are dumb. So far in history fascists are big government types but since fascism is the persecution and or prosecution of your ideological opponents. Small government types can also practice in fascism. Your posts here today are right on the border of such behavior since you seem to think you can shout down and or ridicule people into agreeing with you. You even try and pull tricks. What you practice with your posts is Alinsky tactics which are rooted in fascism.

As to the KKK they very much had an ideology and it was coherent despite it being just plain evil. Learn it.

As to punishing children…what was that gas that Saddam used and how did sanctions cause him to use it?

sarsectank

I haven’t tried to shout anyone down. As far as ridicule goes I’ve received much more of it than anyone else here tonight.

How did sanctions prevent him from using them?

Laurel

No, No, No…you came very specifically to this site to try and belittle and shout everyone down in regards to Rand Paul. It is what you Paulbots always do. You absolutely cannot stand that most people disagree with you and that little tickle in the back of your head knows why. Like children you think if you stamp your feet, scream, use stupid childish tactics to implement your Alinsky tactics and behavior you think you will win. You think that if you just hold out long enough, act ridiculous enough people will get tired and therefore you win. it’s fascist in nature but comes from a place of arrested development.

And crybaby…as far as ridicule goes you getting dished out what you started and deservedly so.

Your last question…”How did sanctions prevent him from using them?” Is a childish Alinsky fascist tactic. You know full well the context of which you originated the post. I guess you like being in the company of Hitler, Mussolini, and Alinsky. I’m betting though that Rand Paul would prefer you to stop making him look bad or worse than he already does. You think you helping but the reality is quite the opposite.

sarsectank

Irony.

57thunderbird

Perfect.

57thunderbird

Not much difference between the two.

sarsectank

Really? Fidel, Saddam, Kim Jung Il, and Kim Il Un got the boot because of sanctions? Fidel still lives above everyone else, Kim Jung Il died from a heart attack, Saddam was tossed out and executed during a war, and Kim Il Un, is fat and happy to this day.

Laurel

Never said they did. Now you are descending into just plain childishness.

sarsectank

You said “Because eventually the leader gets the boot.” Are you now denying what we can all see on the screen?

Laurel

No but I am denying that you can properly discern information.

Keep talking. I like it that you display your stupidity for all of the world to see. You honestly think everyone is as dumb as you. You are trying for some sort of technical coup because you have been thoroughly spanked repeatedly.

And people are perfectly capable of reading down the thread as well dumb dumb. They know what I, Darrell, and others are talking about exactly.

Right, we need to vote for Hillary or another RINO, otherwise we’ll never be able to drive our military into the ground with non-stop deployments and non-stop wars.

jrt

its a delicate but good leadership fine line to avoiding War. Not enough leadership can put you in just as much risk for war than having the right balance. Reagan was the best at it. Ted Cruz..IMO better than Reagan.

marketcomp

I love Reagan but Cruz takes me to another place and beyond. I think your on to something there.

Darrell Griffin

Cruz has the advantage of decades of data and strategy where Reagan was a pioneer…for his time.

He can see the results. The good and the bad, then improve on the policy and the arguments in favor.

Not intended as a slight. It explains why he’s brilliant. Not many could effectively improve on Reagan. I think he can, because he’s genuine. Not a name attacher, or someone paying lip service. Genuine, feels it in his guts, breathes it second nature genuine..

marketcomp

Spot on with that analysis. And that’s how we get hearts and minds.

Vorlath –

Hillary at least won’t be an appeaser like Obama or Rand Paul. And I’m saying this as someone who wants a Republican to win.

sarsectank

Is avoiding foreign entanglements appeasement? Because George Washington didn’t think so. Go ahead and vote for your RINO and vote against President Washington yet again.

Darrell Griffin

Be the windshield or be the bug. Influence events or they will influence you.

There is no “mind your own business” option, whether you like it or not.

sarsectank

Action in events can result in being influenced even more destructively than inaction itself.

Darrell Griffin

So can getting out of bed and leaving the house for work. You still have to do it, or the outside world will come take your house and property when you can’t pay the bills..

This is why we need competent leaders to make those decisions, and why a man child like Obama should have never been elected.

It’s also why someone like Rand Paul cannot be trusted either.

sarsectank

There’s also a reason you don’t run into 8 lanes of traffic. That’s all Paul is trying to do, prevent another endless war, depleted military, and outrageous costs.

Darrell Griffin

No, he’s of the “mind our own business” philosophy. The Paul Doctrine as I call it. He has stated as such on multiple occasions.

These remarks didn’t happen in a vacuum without context of his other positions.

Rand Paul is Ron Paul, just with smarter “messaging”. There is minimal difference between the two on actual policy. If any.

Presentation is another matter. He’s really good at not appearing the “wild-eyed fool” or ranting about the “military industrial complex”.

sarsectank

Right and minding our own business means preventing another endless war, depleted military, and outrageous costs.

Now is he using that altruism to feather his nest? I dunno. Neither do you. Only god knows what is in the heart of everyman.

sarsectank

That’s why I asked what evidence you would accept. Will you demand the same from whomever you choose to vote for? Or is this a one time standard for one person and not everyone else?

Laurel

I make no demands of altruism on the part of any candidate. Never have actually. You are the one who claims he is so altruistic and that there aren’t any other motives. Not me.

sarsectank

Yes you have, the entire portion of this conversation you’ve been talking about evidence. Why does only Paul need to demonstrate altruism?

Laurel

Nor will ever be elected.

Laurel

Oh joy…now you think you are Confucius.

And no. Philosophy as well as physics have proven repeatedly that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.

Darrell Griffin

Confucius always say, those who go to bed with itchy butt wake up with smelly finger.

Laurel

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

marketcomp

Eewwwww!

Laurel

Oh come on! That was funny!

marketcomp

It’s ok! I so like DG! You guys have knocked this thread OUT OF THE WATER today!

Laurel

I know market. I was just joshing ya! How are you anyway?

marketcomp

Fantastic, Laurel.

Laurel

Glad to hear it!

sarsectank

Indeed, and that’s why action isn’t always such a good idea.

Laurel

I guess you never learned what inaction causes or is either.

Displaying those ‘brains’ again.

sarsectank

Wow who would have ever guessed you post something about “brains” yet again. You must be very creative.

Laurel

Thank you. People tell me that all of the time.

jrt

youre right the dems lie /cheat and their rank and file voters/and media don’t bat a lash. We are afraid of being called racist, having the IRS come after us. When are we going to say enough is enough. We are doomed. A decade of Obama and half of fhe nation behind the non-leadership/taxation life….doomed

jrt

Cruz is no appeaser but gets made fun of by his own party for standing up to the left.

jrt

The libs love that we pit Paul against Cruz and are banking on it to make Hil and Joe look good and save face…..But the real concern the GOP needs to have is with voter fraud and policing the vote counts because that is probably the true source to their wins.
talk about cook the books well the Obama adm. invented that when they cooked that last election.
Cruz 2016

sarsectank

The problem the GOP has with not getting enough votes is that they abandon their base routinely. Notice the dems have no such problem.

jrt

I disagree and the old ” abandoned their base” is getting old. The GOP should be running against the policies of the liberal democrats/never pandering….the catch “base” needs to go away. If America …..all rich and poor are hurting enough and the dems throw them fake lying Hill or Joe they will pick the smarter candidate.
Cruz 2016

sarsectank

There hasn’t been a smarter candidate in some time. There’s only been left-wing extremist and left-wing RINO.

jrt

McCain was horrible when debating
O “the messiah” probably no one could have beat the chosen one for the first….
and Romney…weak….I voted for Newt in the primaries…. but a decade of Obama is killing us and the libs know they are to blame…A pineapple would have been a better Prez than O for two terms

Conservator1

I normally agree with everything you post, but there’s nothing old or false stating the GOP has abandoned their base. When Reagan won two historical presidential races with huge margins he increased the GOP base. In his 2nd run, he carried every state except Minnesota.

His pro-life stance, rebuilding of the military and cutting taxes made him the most conservative president in the 20th century. His conservatism coupled with a strong belief in God helped him to win states like California, NYS and Massachusetts.

Then came the Bush’s who increased taxes and dropped any concern for fiscal conservatism. The outcome was a significant drop in the GOP base and campaigning actively in the above mentioned states came to an end. As a conservative living in NYS I’m angered that I never see a single commercial for any Republican presidential candidate.

That’s the reason why I feel abandon by the GOP albeit they have had my vote for close to 40 years.

jrt

What I don’t like about the word base is that it reminds me of the heard that rank and file democrats bussed in to vote for the Dem union leader. I don’t like to assimilate in any way with democrats. At this point we need for either the rank and files to die off or feel the pain in some way to snap out of it. My parents and outlaws and the majority geriatric generation

Conservator1

That’s sensible. As soon as I posted my comment, I wished I didn’t. As I stated, we agree on all the major issues. The fact is I am angry how Republicans have adopted Rove’s presidential play book.

Campaigning in red and purple states only has unintended consequences. First, Democrats don’t waste money in states like California or New York. I can’t recall the last GOP ad I have seen in the tri-state region . There have been ads produced by 3rd parties, but they lack the budgets to be effectice.

Furthermore, it hurts conservative throughout the state. Twenty years ago, the majority of NYS counties were red. But when the GOP dropped out of New York, now leftist run everything.

no skin off my back. the more comments and opinions the better. As the GOP needs a fix and to get back to what Reagan had. Maybe we cant go back but move forward. The problem with moving forward without looking back at Reagan is that we lose site of what we really should be standing for…

Conservator1

Good, and we can never go back to Reagan. Ted Cruz is someone I can support easily. But the Rove play book should be tossed. The GOP needs to compete in all 50 states. Some they will never win, but Democrats would have to invest campaign monies in these states instead of letting them keep those bucks to invest in the tossup states.

The GOP has a great shot at defeating the lefty carpetbagger who represents my district. He won the seat in 2012 by defeating a sitting Tea Party conservative, Dr. Nan Hayworth. It was a close race, but the Republicans didn’t support her campaign financially. If they had, she could have won.

The RNC has pledge to do so this year, but I have yet to see any Party ads as of yet. Tea Party organizations have done so all ready, but without the Party investing some big bucks to her campaign, she will be outspent by her lefty opponent and could loose a seat in a conservative district and that’s my problem.

Sorry about the lenght.

Conservator1

How can you possibly attack virtually every Republican by labeling them RINOs and hail Rand Paul as some kind of giant of conservatism? His isolationism ideology is far worse and in point of fact, places him closer to far left loons compared to the so-called RINOs you are attacking.

sarsectank

Let’s go back the Washington. Was he a far left loon for advising the country to avoid foreign entanglements? If the GOP is at it’s core opposed to Washington, then all their lip service about the Founders is just that, lip service.

We can’t hold our policy hostage to waiting on them to do something. Withdrawal leads to stagnation and defeat. See for example one Putin, Vladimir, and the several marches he’s stolen on barack the magnificent.

Conservator1

No. Let’s go back to the Revolutionary War and explain how 13 small British colonies defeated one of the world’s mightiest empires. How could the colonies match the might and financial resources of the British Empire?

It was because those who became the Founders hadthe ccommon sense to not follow any foolhardy non interventionist reasoning. If France had followed the advice of the Paul’s, America would still be a British colony.

It took time and all of Benjamin Franklin’s expertise to convince the French Empire to invest significantly into the war. Britain and France were enemies for centuries, but that wasn’t enough for them to invest so much on a political and military gamble. That’s when Franklin’s experience and expertise is best examined.

France supplied us with money and food needed for the army. The French supplied us with arms, a fleet of ships and even troops who fought with us. That’s why we have a Constitution.

And all because our Founders ignored the Paul’s ideology. BTW, go back and study George Washington cause you don’t understand historical context.

sarsectank

Paul’s idea and Washington’s idea was to not get caught up favoring nations and getting caught up in unnecessary wars. There is no necessary war on the horizon for us.

Conservator1

Seriously? I’m sorry I wasted my time.

sarsectank

How many tours did you do in Kuwait, Iraq, and Yugoslavia?

Darrell Griffin

Cruz takes all comers on all issues. Breathes conservatism as if it were second nature.

He doesn’t hide behind gimmick lawsuits and poll tested talking points. He doesn’t play it safe or suck up to whoever can help him later. THAT is leadership.

jrt

Amen to that!

marketcomp

Amen to that DG! You and Laurel have been on point about this politician, Rand Paul, all day and I want to commend you both! AWESOME!

jrt

Great minds think alike. I was typing Amen without seeing yours yet…

marketcomp

Isn’t the awesome, jrt! Together in spirit!

Ryan H.

Wow, finally something that makes me like Rand. But note, this was in 2012 probably before he poll-tested every one of his opinions and before he ingratiated himself in the favor of the establishment.

Historian Robert Higgs brilliantly discusses this here:

Please do your research before you make an emotional reaction. Yes, this is an unpopular and unconventional opinion but has the mainstream ever provided you with a unique perspective?

Laurel

I’ve heard this before.

So?

Ryan H.

So, if you believe it to be historically accurate then you must admire Rand for saying it publicly knowing he’ll be ridiculed. Much like when he stated he disagreed with part of civil rights act. You don’t admire that trait in a politician? You like platitude, bumper-sticking repeating (Harvard educated) conventional politicians?

Or you don’t believe it to be historically accurate.

Laurel

Straw man much? And do you always pose logical fallacies as some sort of fact?

Ryan H.

I’ve made my point in the first post-that it’s a position some historians hold. You responded with snark. If you’d like to debate real issues, please bring them and I’ll respond. Or you could proceed to tell me how the politicians you support aren’t conventional.

I responded with So? and I stand by it. So? Just because a historian/s holds a position and some politician copy’s that position doesn’t make it anymore valid.

Ryan H.

That was my whole point, that some historians hold this position. SO, before some label Rand as a pinko liberal commie please realize that a senior scholar at a free market institute shares the same view on history.

You love saying the phrase ‘logical fallacy.’ Explain what’s so illogical about what I said.

Laurel

Umm…I never called Rand Paul any of that but since you want to throw Harvard into things a pinko commie case can be made considering what they churn out these days.

Do you understand what a logical fallacy is per chance?

You made several fallacies actually. Start with Straw Man, move on to false cause, and then the appeal to authority.

Ryan H.

Hah you’re trying to divert from the point by being intellectual. By doing so, you’re really not saying anything. I didn’t even make a comment where you can detect a breakdown in reason, nothing I said was objective or reason based. I can make plenty of a priori arguments regarding the moral philosophical consistency of us “Paulbots.” Please let us have that argument, please.

Second, you clearly didn’t understand my dig at Ted Cruz.

Conservator1

Actually no, I disagree strongly.

57thunderbird

I lost any like I had for Rand as soon as he jumped aboard the amnesty bandwagon.

jrt

I lost respect when he went after Ted Cruz’s throat and not Obama’s

57thunderbird

That too.It takes more than one strike before you are out.None of them are perfect,but I find myself in disagreement with Rand frequently.

jrt

Rand is great at sitting on that fence and never really stating what is good for America. The sign of a good career politician.

jrt

Has Rand been taking lessons from Joe Biden on how to be a foreign affairs officinad and a career politician at the same time?

dwn

The Japanese perceived weakness, and they acted. The Germans perceived a grievance arising from their humiliation and defeat in WW1, and they acted to boldly, though insanely, reclaim their former glory. All were the products of foreign policy. The U.S. foreign policy of sanctions and reparations laid the groundwork for a conflagration of personalities which in hindsight, had the most horrific and terrible consequences imaginable in that time. Now, in today’s reality, that same collision of perceived weakness and perceived advantage could result in a civilization ending in short order. Are you going to begrudge Rand Paul his opinion that history is a good teacher, just because you don’t know history? Or are you going to instead consider the possibility that aspects of his argument may be correct? I can easily say that inaction is the same as permission, or I can also consider that the knee jerk reaction of imposing consequences and sanctions just because it’s a violation of some U.N. bureaucrats international protocols, may have unforeseen consequences which the dictators of the world dream of, and the republics of the world dread. What say you?

Laurel

See…here is the problem…you don’t know history either.

And I don’t oppose Rand Paul having an opinion. I just disagree with his opinion and it’s an easy opinion for him to have since at best it’s hindsight.

Oddly enough most historians disagree with him. What is really odd is his need to continually touch this topic since it isn’t entirely necessary. It’s bad politics and shows a real lack of judgment.

sarsectank

Oddly enough Al Gore says the scientific consensus is that man made global warming is true and only higher taxes and less liberty will stop it.

Laurel

ROFLMAO!!!

Darrell Griffin

Now that is a valid point we can agree on.

Consensus isn’t an automatic qualifier.

jrt

Man made God given weather is Al Gore’s meal ticket since he was slighted out of a presidency by W. Isn’t the weather just so convenient for Al, and to think he had a 50/50 chance at getting it right…picking warming or cooling-which is what we have had since the inception of his man made warming theory.

Lippenheimer

This is a case where the scientific consensus is wrong, and the scientific questioners (whose numbers are arguments are consistently downplayed) are right. IMO. The consensus have powerful political and economic interests in maintaining the global-warming meme (pushing the big-government agenda; winning big-money grants).

jrt

I bet the scientific Pauls believe in man made weather. And Im all for humans being accountable for the planet but we are being taxed and Gore is taking our hard earned money and paying other countries lots of money to make up for destroying the planet. How does that compute??

dwn

Yeah, oddly enough, he continually touches on this topic because he is being asked about this topic. Go figure. Then, instead of interviewing Rand Paul directly and asking him to expound on his remarks, Rubin goes to AEI and does an interview with David Adesnik. Looks like a classic MSNBC type smear job to me. Invite Rand for an interview, then let the chips fall where they may. At least he will actually be present while Adesnik tries to condescend and discredit, and can rebutt as needed. Of course that would mean actually giving a sh-t about what he thinks. Which isn’t likely in this forum.

Conservator1

You just signed up to Disqus and your comment is only 1 of 2 in totality. Is supporting Rand Paul with a mythical view history really that important to you? That’s why people like you are called Paulbots.

jrt

kind of like Obama-zombies….maybe Obama and Paul are really the same person with different masks

Laurel

LOL!

57thunderbird

Ha! 😀

OhioUSMCveteran

I’d like to know just which part is “mythical”? Our embargo against Japan prior to the war is a historical fact, as is the punitive measures against Germany following WW1. Paul, very intelligently, is trying to say that we should be very cautious and think about the consequences of our actions. Don’t you wish more pols did that?

BS61

Thomas Jefferson went to war with the muslim pirates to protect US people – are you saying that he is the same – the US pushed them into war with us forever?

Conservator1

How’s your reading comprehension? I USED the the word MYTHICAL to decribe david nelms’ post. BTW, I don’t need a Paulbot cultist to explain history, especially on WW I or WW II.

The invasion of you and your fellow cult members to the Scoop just proves how disastrous this video was to Rand Paul. He tried to hide it, but the video exposes that he supports his father’s belief on foreign policy,

Any presidential aspiration he had died when that video became public. Get use to it dude.

dwn

Well then, I didn’t vote for Ron Paul. I’m also not from Kentucky so didn’t vote for Rand. Am I still a Paulbot cultist? I was compelled to respond because their is someone like you trolling around labeling everyone in neat little shallow boxes so you can then dismiss their substance based on the fact they are in THAT box. You are delusional if you think either the repubs or the demos are always right or always wrong. History provides context. You lack context. The perspective that history can provide is vitally important to the understanding about events that are taking place today. I happen to believe that Rand was mostly correct. I suggest that it is high past time for some boat rockers to get up on the podium and shake it up some. Hope it won’t scare you too much. Hope you can find some context. BTW, you might just as easliy be boxed up as an establishment loving, gov growing, Rove kissing, McCain coddling, Bushyite neocon cultist. See how easy that was, and I didn’t have to talk about substance at all.

Conservator1

Yes, that comment confirms you’re a Paulbot cultist. Now go shake things up based on your wrong conclusions on what history has proven about isolationism. Reagan summed it nicely with just a single sentence:

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong — Ronald Reagan

But I guess you think he was a neoconservative as well. I leave this thread knowing happily that Rand Paul will never be president. Now do you see how easy it is to refute Paulbots?

dwn

Yes now I see how easy it is. I also see how flippant and stupid it is. I can count Ronald Reagan as the only president in my half century of existence that I unequivocally admire. STILL a Paulbot?. Your only peeved because I pushed your Bushy button.

Conservator1

I must agree, you definitely hit my Bushy button. Yes indeed; you proved how to consisely demonstrate flippacy and stupidity as well.

BTW, Paul says he’s a Republican in the tradition of Reagan. I disagree and thus, your pledge of support of Reagan is comforting, but meaningless based on your support of isolationism. That’s anti Reagan as it gets.

Lastly, I am done with this comment section. If I want to debate Paul today, I would be bashing him on immigration.

dwn

aww come on,just one more. I think Paul has a stricter interpretation of when and where the U.S. should project power abroad. That is not isolationist. That sounds more like the cautious position of a man who is not president. Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” ,initiative was the closest thing to real leadership that I have ever seen. His objectives were clear and he was entirely credible because people knew he wasn’t lying or mishmashing, or bluffing. However his intent was not to then bleed out his strength through foreign entanglements that did not have a compelling national interest. His intent was to instead bleed the economic strength from the USSR and facilitate collapse from within without a shot being fired. He was spot on correct, and he was successful beyond the expectations of many many experts who dissed him from day one. They were wrong even though they were experts. Hmmm, sounds like some of todays experts at the AEI. I personally think Paul has a lot of work to do if he is serious about running. I think Cruz would blow him out of the water, right along with the McCains and Bushes. Godspeed Ted. But lets allow public discourse to define us for a change, instead of allowing pol talking heads to define us in neatly packaged talking points which ultimately fail to encompass the potential that could be the conservative republican party. Karl Rove you are so fired already. Go away. Ted step up and take a shot.

dwn

I hear crickets….chirp…chirp…

MaxineCA

Well, well. Interesting thread. I’m not going to jump into the mix but just wanted to say “good job” to Scoop friends who actually know history, rather those that must have learned it at a liberal university. I’ll leave this thread in your very capable hands.

sarsectank

Has anyone submitted this thread yet to the Guinness book of world records yet?

Yeah, it’s one of them thar new fangled hippie drinks the kids like these days.

Laurel

To each his own.

jrt

no, we don’t want the IRS after us… I suspect that the Pauls have their Obama connections secretly

jrt

I don’t like that The Pauls get this much attention for being so weak.
Paul fans…..are you going to allow him to be the Ross Perot to split the vote at next election. Isnt your living paycheck to paycheck savings, vacation funds hurting enough?

sarsectank

Are you going to allow another RINO to split the vote by driving off the base, and as Rush Limbaugh says, making the GOP the third party?

Darrell Griffin

You mean the way that Paulbots have done every election cycle for the past 12+ years ?

When their king of Quirkistan can’t win a single primary, but they run around claiming he got robbed. Disrupt and/or try to hijack the convention, openly undermine the ticket, and bash the candidate ? Then stay home, vote third party, or vote for the Democrat anyway ?

I’ve seen that crap far too many times. Sorry, but Paulbots have no moral authority to lecture anyone about “letting the Democrat win” or “splitting the vote.” NONE.

NPC

Man, that’s so correct.
Tunnel vision seems to be rearing its ugly head again. No different than in the last go arounds.
It’s this kind of thinking that will not help the country.
For some reason the health of the nation doesn’t even come into their view. There is too much emphasis on, ” I want my man to win”, to hell with everything else. IMHO it’s scary.

Darrell Griffin

The “base” is conservatives. Not Paulbots. If the “base” was measured by disruption and antics, Paulbots would be in charge.

Liberaltarians are less than 10% of the party, they are the other end of the pendulum from the RINOs. Borderline anarchists vs. borderline leftist DNC lite. The “base” is the 80-85% of the rest of us stuck in between the two.

If you were the “base”, then Ron Paul would have actually won a primary and you could get 10% or higher on a vote consistently.

jrt

its my observation that anyone that thinks they know what their brain is for, voted for Barack twice now finds themselves to be libertarian which is their upscale democrat title. you will see many more libertarian in the next election. But they are just democrats sitting on the fence

Laurel

Good Night Scoopers and Paulbots. And yes any further responses will be ignored Paulbots.

Darrell Griffin

About time for the night shift to come in anyways…….

I’m out myself.

PC

Rubin, as usual, took her own weird, twisted view of statements he made in 2012. So, in looking at Japan’s actions in their part of the world in the mid-late ’30’s, which they purported to be a “stabilization” effort, and the US/GB reaction (oil embargo) to get them to behave, I’m not sure where Paul missed the boat in the context of what he was explaining. He was questioned about supporting sanctions against Iran. He noted, though, (wisely really when you think about it) that sanctions sometimes have consequences and that must be weighed out in any sane foreign policy. Duh…neocons, pre-emptive strikers are all rhetoric about going to war but when the years/lives roll on, and the exit strategy gets left in the hands of the Democrats, we inevitably depart with nothing to show for it. That, I would say, is the “weakness” that the world perceives…for you see, the world doesn’t look at America as GOP vs. DNC. They just look at how we respond to long-term conflict. Wait us out long enough (and many areas are pretty good at holding on to grudges…like 1,000’s of years) and we will leave and they will resume whatever nefarious deeds that got us into conflict in the first place.
Sorry, Right Scoop, but I think you are quite short-sited to a) agree with Jennifer Rubin, and b) pick up her nasty paint brush.

You clearly didn’t look at the video or bother to read the article very closely. The person quoted in the article is from the AEI. Scoop also adds his own analysis and mentions questions derived from discussing this on his own.

Rubin is merely the one who brought it up.

PC

Actually, I did both. Paul is talking about unintended consequences of sanctions. Sometimes they work for you and sometimes they cause bigger problems. The bi-line link that I followed was from an article with Caleb Howe’s bi-line in the Free Republic regarding Rubin’s opinin and the cherry picked argument that she sort of lays out in an atempt to underscore Paul as an isloationist. He simply isn’t what she says and his comments make that very clear. Actually, AEI, in their commentary on his comments supported what he said.
Howe’s comment “…Ron Paul-like Isolationism…” indicate pretty clearly that he concedes Rubin’s point as accurate and perpetuates her misrepresenation of what Paul actually said and what he actually believes is an appropriate way to consider a very complicated issue. The most ironic part of this whole thing is that he is defending himself from a “Libertarian” question about why he would even support sanctions.
At the end of the day, Paul is cautious on how we dive into the world’s problems and would advocte thinking through all of the consequences. I don’t consider thinking through actions and weighing out options a bad thing, but the GOP that chooses to continue to police the world in one unending conflict after another will lose.

So not only is Scoop somehow unable to formulate and write his own analysis, but now you’re claiming Caleb is also unable to do so? You just keep selling that shinola. Someone is bound to be stupid enough to buy it.

Rand is the author of his own difficulties here. If you want to complain to someone, give him a call.

DanN99AL

WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR RAND PAUL!

At this point, I will vote for Hillary Clinton if Rand Paul somehow is the nominee.

Lippenheimer

He’s definitely not my first choice. But I’d pick him over Huckabee.

And I do not doubt that Mike Huckabee, like you, would cast his vote for Hillary.

sarsectank

Then you will get more war, a more worn down military, more spending, more government, more taxes, and more socialism, and for what?

DanN99AL

Sounds like you want a liberal, Rand Paul should be your candidate.

Lippenheimer

Rand Paul is not anything close to a liberal.

sarsectank

No Hillary is a liberal, because she will give you more government, Paul will reduce government and so cannot be a liberal.

BS61

How is endoursing McConnell an indication that Rand is for a smaller govt?

DanN99AL

To be clear, I don’t like Hillary Clinton, but at least her foreign policy isn’t as a extreme as Ron Paul’s and she won’t be as likely to ignore Israel, also, I will not waste my vote on a 3rd Party candidate and that would only leave Hillary.

I will vote for Rand Paul if he gets the nomination. There is not a Democrat in the country, let alone Hillary, that I would pick otherwise. That said, I have my concerns about Rand Paul. I would much rather go with Ted Cruz, or a solid and proven Republican governor like Scott Walker.

Is this the thread were someone had the 1958 Blue & White Edsel Citation for sale? (scratching head)

Oh wait reminds of a story I heard once upon a time. 🙂

Farm kid joins the Marines

Dear Ma and Pa,

I am well. Hope you are. Tell Brother Walt and Brother Elmer the Marine Corps beats working for old man Minch by a mile. Tell them to join up quick before all of the places are filled.

I was restless at first because you get to stay in bed till nearly 6 a.m. But I am getting so I like to sleep late. Tell Walt and Elmer all you do before breakfast is smooth your cot, and shine some things. No hogs to slop, feed to pitch, mash to mix, wood to split, fire to lay. Practically nothing.

Men got to shave but it is not so bad, there’s warm water.

Breakfast is strong on trimmings like fruit juice, cereal, eggs, bacon, etc., but kind of weak on chops, potatoes, ham, steak, fried eggplant, pie and other regular food, but tell Walt and Elmer you can always sit by the two city boys that live on coffee. Their food, plus yours, holds you until noon when you get fed again. It’s no wonder these city boys can’t walk much.

We go on ‘route marches,’ which the platoon sergeant says are long walks to harden us. If he thinks so, it’s not my place to tell him different. A ‘route march’ is about as far as to our mailbox at home. Then the city guys get sore feet and we all ride back in trucks.

The sergeant is like a school teacher. He nags a lot. The Captain is like the school board. Majors and colonels just ride around and frown. They don’t bother you none.

This next will kill Walt and Elmer with laughing. I keep getting medals for shooting. I don’t know why. The bulls-eye is near as big as a chipmunk head and don’t move, and it ain’t shooting at you like the Higgett boys at home. All you got to do is lie there all comfortable and hit it. You don’t even load your own cartridges. They come in boxes.

Then we have what they call hand-to-hand combat training. You get to wrestle with them city boys. I have to be real careful though, they break real easy. It ain’t like fighting with that ole bull at home. I’m about the best they got in this except for that Tug Jordan from over in Silver Lake . I only beat him once. He joined up the same time as me, but I’m only 5’6′ and 130 pounds and he’s 6’8′ and near 300 pounds dry.

Be sure to tell Walt and Elmer to hurry and join before other fellers get onto this setup and come stampeding in.

Your loving daughter,

Laurel

tinlizzieowner

Love it. 🙂

NPC

This is just great, you made me smile, thanks I needed that.

MadMadJack

Glad to bring a smile to your face. With all the lousy news we see every day a feel good story is nice every once in awhile.

NPC

Yes by all means, we seem to get a lot of comedic rants from this world, but not much that is enjoyable and laughable, that’s why your story struck home in a big way, you do seem to have a good handle on ‘comedic relief’, and I did pick up on your Edsel comment as well.Terrific thinking, keep it up. Again thanks.

$91628314

The Republican base is yearning for a candidate like Ronald Reagan in my opinion. A person who will stand on principle and who will act in the best interest(s) of the country instead of their own political agenda.

I don’t have anything against Rand Paul personally per se. I like the fact that he’s a Christian and a family man and that he has called attention to the persecution of Christians in other countries. What I have trouble with is Rand Paul ran on the coattails of the Tea Party but once he got in office he started to rub shoulders with the establishment – the ones following in lockstep with Obama in many cases – and thus his conservative credentials lack substance in more ways than one. He was against droning American citizens on American soil before he was for it. He made a remark that should alarm everyone when he said: “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash,” he said, “I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” He is also trying to rewrite history by telling people America was partially at fault for the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor which is utter nonsense.

I think Rand Paul’s main problem was that he grew up with Ron Paul as his dad. And by that I mean he was indoctrinated into his dad’s conspiracy nonsense and other weird ideas while growing up. Such as drug legalization and nationwide prostitution and also his bizarre isolationist mentality and some would also say racist tendencies toward Jews and people of color. The more Rand listens to his dad’s advice the less chance he has of becoming President in my opinion. Rand also faces other obstacles because he supports amnesty for illegals which will harm low income Americans the most. Most illegal immigrants are on government assistance such as welfare, etc., and as a result the national debt will continue to skyrocket at a time when America is already on the verge of bankruptcy. American citizens are being disenfranchised in the process and the ‘rule of law’ is, quite frankly, being ignored by our so-called “leaders” of the country.

America needs a strong leader without any ties to Washington D.C. because most politicians in Washington D.C. aren’t really serious about fixing America’s problems. Barack Obama is a prime example of a corrupt leader who is bankrupting the country. And many Republicans in Congress have given Obama the keys to the ignition and in which he immediately drove America into a ditch.

Scott Walker, on the other hand, would make a superb President in my opinion because he has the fortitude and resolve to fix America’s pressing problems like our skyrocketing debt and our tarnished image which Barack Obama has ruined in short order. We also need a conservative Vice President who will work in conjunction with the President to help carry out the goals of reinvigorating the military and repairing the harm that Democrats have caused. The American people want real leaders who care about the country and the citizenry and who will tackle the tough problems that have caused America’s rapid decline under Democrat Party rule.

Ronald Reagan was such a person but unfortunately Ronald Reagan is no longer with us. Mitt Romney and John McCain were moderates at best and they both lost big time to Obama in the end. Ronald Reagan won because he was an effective conservative leader who meant what he said and acted accordingly. Most politicians like to ‘talk the talk’ but they won’t ‘walk the walk’ and that’s why America is in decline and why it is the rule of law is ignored and the Constitution trampled upon. They get into office and they witness the decadent behavior and outright corruption and the various perks which ends up leading them astray from their original intentions. Unfortunately that includes Rand Paul and many others in my opinion too.

That’s why we need men and women of conviction. People who won’t be swayed by power or influence and will get the job done. Ronald Reagan was able to overcome and so can others. The road may be hard but the end results are well worth it. The Reagan administration created the greatest period of economic expansion and prosperity the world has ever known and Democrats fought him every step of the way. But he stood strong and as a result America grew stronger and the world became safer. Just the opposite has happened under Barack Obama.

Reagan did agree to give amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants on the condition the border was finally secured. Well, amnesty was eventually granted but Democrats refused to secure the border, and thereby, they betrayed Reagan’s act of good will. Republicans would be foolhardy to make the same mistake because Democrats obviously want open borders and they also support illegal immigration. Joe Biden believes they are already American citizens! That’s why Joe Biden will NEVER be president. Amnesty would benefit the Democrat Party while in contrast it would harm the Republican Party. Latinos have always preferred the Democrat Party for the most part because Democrats support open borders and they also reward criminal behavior. With friends like that who needs enemies? By the way, when I say Latinos, I mean those who enter the country illegally. There are many fine upstanding Latinos that love America and many of them also oppose illegal immigration. I wanted to clarify my statement because as we all know America is a nation of immigrants. I fully support ‘legal’ immigration but as an American citizen I despise illegal immigration because it shows no respect for the rule of law or the U.S. Constitution and according to U.S. immigration law they are considered federal criminals and as such they should be deported. Which isn’t really happening during Obama’s second term because the mid-term elections are right around the corner and Democrats need all the votes they can get. Even if it’s done through unlawful means by way of voter fraud. Yes, illegal immigrants have voted in elections and Democrats continue to turn a blind eye.

America is currently in decline because the inmates are running the asylum and they have given away the keys to the kingdom. If Republicans act like Democrats the United States is in a whole heap of trouble. Are you listening John Boehner? Are you listening Paul Ryan? Are you listening Rand Paul? Are you listening Republican Party? Being a Democrat-lite means there would no longer be a two party system. A one Party system will lead to a dictatorship and if that happens America will become a Banana Republic. In fact it is already happening under Barack Obama. Is that what Republicans want? Be careful what you wish for.

Gene White

Pretty good stuff you write.

MadMadJack

Are the repugnicants listening? Yes, maybe 4 or 5 of them, that’s it. I became a republican when LBJ was president and quit being one when they ran McCain. They are a sorry lot.

its simple. Rand is a fencer and lacks true rock solid leadership. At this point after a decade of Obama’s obliviousness we need better than Reagan. There is only one candidate better than Reagan…. Cruz. Cruz will stand against the GOP establishment and against Obama and put America back to its shining Glory.

NPC

Rand will never be a Statesman, He might say the right thing at times,but I think we’ve been AGAIN, trying to make something out of nothing.He may seem good but he’s not, that good. It has not been proven.
I’m not necessarily a Christie fan, but i have a feeling he will surprise many of us. He currently may be engulfed in an overblown mess, but when the dust settles, I think he will rise to the top. His current mess is no different than what a majority of politicians get involved in, but gets downplayed, depending what side of the isle he’s at.
Other than a Ted Cruz and Mike Leah (Utah) and maybe a small few more, I still have to see a person of Authority, that can demand Respect, is a strict enforcer of the Constitution, and is a Statesman, doesn’t have to lie to be popular, to create a cult following.
I like Ted Cruz, and he says all the right things,but IMHO doesn’t carry the maturity. Unless he can surround himself with mature people that will stand with him, and not screw around with the Constitution, the country stands a chance. We have to go back to the concept of being a nation of Law, not of Man. If we don’t forge on that front, we’re just going through a bunch of make belief, again. And that’s just IMHO.

MadMadJack

NPC, I like your humble opinion. Yes Ted Cruz doesn’t have the maturity but look at the fella that was elected president twice. He had far less maturity, knowledge or smarts that Ted brings to the table. But of course we know there are by buttload of morons that are allowed to vote.

NPC

Yeah you are so correct, overall, rather than worrying about picking the proper candidate,our biggest problem is and probably always be “the ‘buttload of morons” that are allowed to vote, of course the Progressive Liberal loves them and will always cater to them, because they have nothing better to offer to the country. Now, the question is how do we overcome the ‘power of the morons’?.
The Libs have allowed and encouraged the moron to flourish, and although they seem to be the minority, they seem to rule the roost.Because they carry a bigger bullhorn. Unless the conservatives get off the couch and do the one God given right they still have this far, and get out, and at minimum, VOTE, this country stands a chance, if they keep thinking somebody else will handle it, we will keep what we have now, and we can scream all we want regarding picking this or that candidate, but nothing will change. The culture is bad, and it’s gonna take many miracles and hard and determined work, and the first order of the day will have to be, taking out the so called ‘leaders’ that thrive, cater, and get the support of these buttloads of morons. Anything less will just be an exercise in futility.

OhioUSMCveteran

This headline takes Paul’s words totally out of context and is horribly misleading. Democrat tactics. Establishment nervous about Paul? Full disclosure: I can’t stand Ron Baul; no Paulbot here, but Rand intrigues me.

Darrell Griffin

Rand is Ron with smarter messaging. Same world view, same overall policies. Not much variance on substance.

The comments are not out of context. It’s what he said, and what libertarians have said (including his dad) before.

“Rand blames America for Pearl” would be out of context.

Rebel

I stand with Rand..

Gtrjag

I will stand with Rand when he is right. Here he is wrong, not because of what we said about WW2, but because he fails to understand the dangers of Iran acquiring nukes. I like Ted Cruz, but he is not right all the time and when he is wrong I’ll say he is wrong. I like Rick Perry, but the same goes for his as well. I understand the appeal that the Pauls have. I like them both, but I find the blind, cult like following they have to be just a bit creepy.

BS61

I’m not worried what Rubin thinks – I’m far more concerned with Rands sellout support to crony establishment McConnell. He showed me his morals and ethics with that endorsement.

Dr. Strangelove

Suuuure, Paul. We should have just let Japan “stabilize” Manchuria without saying a word. Hey, why don’t you crack a history book and look up the Rape of Nanking?

William Cooke

“You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bit.” – Herbert Hoover after Pearl Harbor. People like Rubin live in a twisted world where you have to pretend that the truth is not the truth. That is why Christie was forced to apologize for referring to the “occupied territories”.

Whitehall

Hoover’s book – “Freedom Betrayed” – that came out recently was an eye-opener. Never before had I read of such cogent criticism of FDR and the thinking behind “isolationism” of the time.

Our big mistake was encouraging England to go to war over Poland, according to Hoover.

archer

George Washington was a isolationist, but what he said was trade with everyone just don’t get involved with security treaties. Isolationism is a good thing, the british never would have become involved with fighting Germany if they thought they would have to go it without us. Our involvement in WW1 caused the war to grind on for another year causing many more deaths, the British, French and Germans were exhausted and were considering a peace until we came in and tipped the balance of power. If there was an equitable peace there wouldn’t have been WW2.

Our involvement in Serbia, Libya,Iraq and now Syria are all immoral and have not benefited the US in any way, we only managed to kill many more people and create new enemies. We have more than our share of problems at home, time to concentrate on them and stop killing people for the bankers.

Brendan Hall

Hitler said the same bad people who wanted World War I wanted World War Two.

Whitehall

I believe the article mis-reads Rand’s intentions in this statement. The PROXIMATE cause of Pearl Harbor was indeed Roosevelt’s oil embargo. Any decent history of the period will agree with that – the Japanese admitted it afterwards and its in their archives. The “isolationist” position of the time, endorse by Hoover, Joe Kennedy, and many others, was basically “let you and him fight” – meaning Stalin and Hitler.

FDR was indeed eager to get into the war and was indeed looking for ways to provoke it via Japan. He wanted to help England survive. Hoover made a good point after WWII – the total number of people living in tyranny in 1950 was multiples of what it was beforehand. A good metric I think although I’m neutral on this historical issue (isolationism vs. jumping into WWII.)

My takeaway point is that sanctions and embargoes can definitely LEAD to war when tensions are high and Pearl Harbor is an example. This piece is unfair to Rand Paul.

dwn

Thanks for that Whitehall. If Conservator1 and Laurel were around I’m sure they would immediately eviscerate you based on the fact that you must be a Paulbot therefore anything you say must be isolationist or something. The article is a misread because they produced a misread. Plain and simple. Why wouldn’t Rubin interview Rand instead of relying on some analysis of Rand’s words from some think tank wonk at AEI? Because it’s much easier to misrepresent someone’s words when they are not present to rebut and clarify as needed point by point. Now, to David Adesnik. I’m thinking that the temptation to expound on the mind and mindset of Rand was just irresistable, even though he wasn’t there to elucidate for readers exactly what was meant by everything that was said. That’s okay I guess, but readers can’t place too much stock in that, can they? I didn’t place much stock in the third party know-all wonks who absolutely hammered Pat Buchanan every time he stuck his neck out while running for president, and it turns out everything he was saying then was prophetically correct, even though critics were hollering and screaming ISOLATIONIST!! Immigrant hater! Racist! So just give it a rest will ya? Isolationism is the great red herring for the masses. They are holding it up and flopping it around with their left hand, all the while taking care of their real business with the right. Not cool,not cool at all.

Whitehall

I’m no isolationist but I think there will be a period of national rebuilding after Obama before we regain our strength and the world see peace and order again.

First, our economy and then the military. It takes time to build 300 warships and find the money to pay for them.

I’m still open for the GOP candidate, and that includes Rand. I like Rick “Meathead” Perry based on his record and one-liners but lets see some pre-season games before I decide who is my draft pick.

dwn

Agreed,Perry has sand, but Cruz has got the stones! If I had a say in the platform, it would be: Leave me and mine alone. Leave my money alone. Leave my stuff alone. If anybody comes after me or my stuff, I have the right to protect and defend. That’s ninety percent of the governments constitutional authority in a nutshell, We could save trillions!

Senator Paul is speaking the truth. The same banking elites that tricked the US into believing pearl harbor was a surprise attack to eliminate hitler and his control of Germany’s money want Iran. Irans money is not controlled by the rothchilds and it’s oil is under the governments control, not big oil. So this nuke scare is like the lie these people did to us with iraq with WMD. they use their tribes country a a point man to lead the charge